Final push for approval of Tuccori opt-in deals underway 

Two brokerages and the National Association of Realtors recently made their final pushes to get the settlement deals in a homebuyer commissions case over the finish line.

Meanwhile, NAR's winning streak with mandatory membership cases continues. And in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a lawsuit filed against Zillow five years ago by one of the company's investors.

NAR, Elliman, Compass urge final settlement approval in Tuccori

In the Illinois homebuyer commissions case known as Tuccori, NAR filed an amicus brief in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals while Compass and Douglas Elliman filed briefs in district court.

NAR urges court to avoid 'premature influence': NAR's amicus brief, filed Sept. 28 in the Seventh Circuit, focused on urging the court to not have a "premature influence" over the district court's settlement approval proceedings. NAR, a defendant in a similar case known as Batton, opted into the Tuccori settlement earlier this year, agreeing to pay $52.25 million. The agreement received preliminary approval in May, and a fairness hearing in Tuccori is set for Nov. 2.

NAR is one of many defendants in buyer-initiated commissions cases that has opted into the Tuccori settlement. Anywhere Real Estate, which opted in before NAR, has received pushback for its deal. Batton plaintiffs have alleged that the Anywhere opt-in settlement constituted an effort to "end-run the Batton litigation" and filed an appeal in an attempt to block it.

In its Sept. 28 filing, NAR acknowledged that it is not a party in that appeal but suggested the appellant was trying "to present arguments that go beyond the narrow intervention question presented in this appeal in an improper attempt to influence the district court's consideration of NAR's settlement."

"Any statement or ruling by this Court that could be read to prejudge the fairness or propriety of NAR's settlement — based on an incomplete record and without NAR's participation as a party — would adversely affect NAR's interests," the association's filing said.

No 'reverse auctions' in Elliman, Compass deals: Meanwhile, Compass and Douglas Elliman both filed briefs in support of the settlements getting final approval.

In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Elliman urged the court to overrule the objections filed by Tom Wheeler, a non-party class member, and Aaron Bolton, a plaintiff in Batton, and to approve its opt-in settlement amount of $2.04 million.

In its Oct. 7 filing, Elliman noted that of the over 39.6 million prospective class members, only two objectors have emerged, with the objection from Bolton filed by attorneys in the competing Lutz v. HomeServices of America case. Elliman attorneys said they never received a settlement offer from Lutz counsel, dismissing allegations that a "reverse auction" was taking place through the brokerage's opt-in deal in Tuccori.

The filing also noted that the opt-in procedure was modeled after the landmark Sitzer/Burnett opt-in framework, which was recently affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Compass' argument for final approval of its $7.3 million settlement, attorneys for the mega brokerage also suggested there was no evidence of a reverse auction.

"Compass did not entertain competing bids and did not play one set of plaintiffs against another with competing demands," Compass' Oct. 7 filing said. It added that the company was never in negotiations with the Batton plaintiffs, who brought the original lawsuit against the firm.

Mandatory membership case dismissed (again)

Courts are continuing to rule in favor of NAR when it comes to mandatory membership lawsuits filed over access to multiple listing service data.

On Oct. 7, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's October 2025 dismissal of a Pennsylvania case known as Muhammad, declaring, "The District Court also was well within its discretion to deny Muhammad another bite at the apple by dismissing the matter with prejudice on grounds of futility."

The case, filed in 2024 by Maurice Muhammad, alleged that requiring agents to join NAR in order to gain access to their local MLS was a violation of antitrust laws. Muhammad also alleged that this policy disproportionately affected minority professionals who lack the financial resources to pay the mandatory fees.

Since the case was dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.

In a statement, NAR indicated that it was pleased with the ruling. "NAR's policies foster competition and are not discriminatory," the statement said. "The Association's integrated structure is essential to the value we provide our members, including a unified voice on policy issues, a uniform Code of Ethics, and important tools and professional development opportunities that help members get to their next transaction with more confidence."

The Oct. 7 decision came a month after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of another mandatory membership lawsuit filed in 2024 by a Texas broker. The plaintiff in that case, known as Eytalis, had accused NAR, state and local associations of antitrust violations.

Supreme Court rejects Zillow's request

On Oct. 5, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Zillow's petition for review of a case filed in 2021 by Jeremy Jaeger, one of the company's investors. The plaintiffs, who claimed that the company made misleading comments about its Zillow Offers iBuyer program that resulted in losses for shareholders, filed an opposition brief to Zillow's request for review by the Supreme Court in August.

The case was granted class status in 2024. Zillow's petition focused on that class-certification ruling, which the portal argues was granted inappropriately. The high court's rejection of Zillow's review request clears the path for litigation to proceed in the US. District Court for the Western District of Washington.