Comprehensive tracking and analysis of major real estate industry lawsuits
The recent wave of antitrust lawsuits targeting the real estate industry has resulted in over a billion dollars in settlements and is poised to fundamentally reshape how agents are compensated. At the forefront of this legal assault are three powerhouse plaintiff law firms: Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, and Susman Godfrey. This tracker provides comprehensive analysis of the key legal strategies these firms have employed to successfully challenge the long-standing commission-sharing rules of the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR).
Key dates and milestones in the real estate commission lawsuits
Cohen Milstein files the first commission lawsuit in Illinois federal court
Hagens Berman files copycat lawsuit in Missouri less than 2 months after Moehrl
Major antitrust suit filed targeting buyer-agent commission practices
Two-week trial in Kansas City federal court with testimony from industry CEOs
Jury awards $1.8 billion to home sellers, shocking the real estate industry
Major brokerages begin settling to avoid similar verdicts
NAR agrees to $418M settlement and comprehensive practice changes
Removal of buyer agent commission offers from MLS sites becomes mandatory
Twenty-two new plaintiffs added to Batton lawsuit targeting Compass, Redfin, eXp
Court grants final approval to NAR settlement
Deadline for many Sitzer/Burnett-related settlement claims
Class certification motion filed in Batton 2 buyer suit
Oral arguments presented before Eighth Circuit Court
DOJ intervenes in Howard Hanna/Davis case, arguing trade association rules violate antitrust laws
Keller Williams settles Batton lawsuit for $20M
Final approval hearings for $42M+ settlements from William Raveis, Howard Hanna, EXIT, Windermere, and others
Final approval granted for $42M settlement with five brokerages
The central pillar of the plaintiffs' case, pursued in a coordinated fashion by all three firms, was a direct assault on NAR's "Buyer Broker Commission Rule." This rule, which required listing brokers to make a blanket, non-negotiable offer of compensation to buyer brokers when listing a property on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), was framed as the linchpin of an industry-wide conspiracy to inflate commission rates.
In a truly competitive market, the firms argued, buyers would pay their own agents directly. The NAR rule, however, forced sellers to bear this cost, effectively baking it into the home's sale price.
By mandating a blanket offer, the rule prevented buyer agents from competing on price to attract clients. This, in turn, kept commission rates artificially high.
The firms presented evidence that buyer agents would often "steer" their clients toward properties offering higher commission splits, regardless of the home's suitability for the buyer. This created a perverse incentive that harmed both buyers and sellers.
While united in their core legal theory, each firm brought unique strengths and strategies to the table.
Deep-dive investigation, identifying the key NAR rule after a tip from a consumer advocate. Saw the opportunity where others had failed for decades.
Focused on the historical context of the NAR rules and the failure of previous DOJ investigations to effect change.
Called industry leaders (CEOs of NAR, Keller Williams, etc.) as witnesses, using their testimony to expose the inner workings of the industry.
High risk tolerance, anticipating a trial from the outset due to the existential threat to the industry.
Positioned the case as a long-overdue reform of a broken system.
The October 2023 Sitzer/Burnett trial, which resulted in a stunning $1.8 billion jury verdict, serves as a masterclass in the plaintiffs' trial strategy.
The plaintiffs' attorneys successfully framed the complex antitrust issues in a way that was easy for the jury to understand: sellers were being forced to pay the buyer's agent, and this was unfair.
By putting the CEOs of NAR and major brokerages on the stand, the plaintiffs' attorneys were able to use the defendants' own words to paint a picture of an industry that was resistant to change and determined to protect its commission structure.
The jury was presented with clear evidence that U.S. commission rates were out of step with the rest of the world, and that the rise of online home search had diminished the role of the buyer's agent, making the high commissions even more egregious.
The coordinated legal strategies of Cohen Milstein, Hagens Berman, and Susman Godfrey have not only resulted in massive financial settlements but have also forced a paradigm shift in the real estate industry. By targeting the core rules that have governed agent compensation for decades, these firms have opened the door to a more competitive and transparent market.
The long-term impact of these cases will be felt for years to come, as the industry adapts to a new landscape where commission rates are no longer fixed, and consumers have more power to negotiate.
Preview our weekly digest to see the comprehensive lawsuit updates, practice tips, and case analysis delivered to your inbox every Tuesday morning
Five brokerages including William Raveis and Howard Hanna received final court approval for their combined $42M settlement. Class members who filed claims by the December 30 deadline can expect payments within 60-90 days.
Read full analysis →Class certification motion hearing scheduled for March 15, 2026
DOJ files amicus brief supporting plaintiffs' antitrust claims
Buyer-Broker Agreement Best Practices
With mandatory written agreements now in effect, ensure your forms clearly state: (1) your compensation amount or percentage, (2) who pays it, and (3) the agreement duration. Consider offering tiered service packages with corresponding fee structures.
This is a preview of what you'll receive every Tuesday at 9 AM ET