Four Lawsuits, One Target: How DeYoung, Hardy, Zea, and Milko Are Attacking NAR's Mandatory Membership Model From Four Different Directions

By Frances Flynn Thorsen

Most real estate agents know about the Sitzer/Burnett verdict and the Batton 2 litigation. Far fewer know about the four quieter cases working their way through federal courts right now — cases that, taken together, represent the most coordinated legal assault on NAR's mandatory Realtor association membership requirements since the Department of Justice opened its own investigation in 2020.

DeYoung v. NAR, Hardy v. NAR, Zea v. NAR, and Milko v. NAR are not commission cases. They do not involve buyer broker compensation rules, cooperative compensation, or the NAR settlement. They target something more fundamental: the requirement that real estate professionals join NAR — and pay NAR dues — as a condition of accessing the MLS tools they need to do their jobs.

This post compares the four cases side by side: where they were filed, what legal theories they advance, how far they have gotten, and what they could mean for the industry if any one of them succeeds.

The Core Allegation: Bundled Membership as an Antitrust Violation

All three lawsuits share a common premise. NAR's rules, as implemented through local REALTOR® associations and MLS platforms, require practitioners to maintain active membership in their local, state, and national Realtor associations as a condition of MLS access. Plaintiffs in all three cases argue this is an illegal tying arrangement — a practice where a seller conditions the sale of one product (MLS access) on the buyer's purchase of a separate, unwanted product (REALTOR® association membership and dues).

The antitrust theory is straightforward: if MLS access is the product you need, and REALTOR® association membership is the product you are forced to buy to get it, and if NAR has sufficient market power in the MLS access market, then the bundled requirement may violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs are not arguing that REALTOR® associations have no value — they are arguing that the decision to join should be voluntary, not compelled by market structure.

Where the four cases diverge is in geography, the specific defendants named, the procedural posture, and the particular facts each set of plaintiffs uses to support the tying theory.

DeYoung v. NAR: The Louisiana Tying Case

Filed: January 2025 | Court: Middle District of Louisiana (Baton Rouge) | Status: Ongoing — Second Amended Complaint Filed

DeYoung is the broadest of the three cases in terms of defendants. Plaintiffs Carla DeYoung, Carlos Alvarez, Tammy Jo Williams, and Darlene Currie — a mix of brokers and agents — sued not only NAR but also the Greater Baton Rouge Association of REALTORS® (GBRAR), the New Orleans Metropolitan Association of REALTORS® (NOMAR), ROAM MLS, and several other Louisiana-based defendants.

The complaint alleges that access to MLS data and MLS-related platforms in Louisiana is conditioned on compulsory membership in local, state, and national Realtor associations. The plaintiffs argue this constitutes an illegal tying arrangement that forecloses competition and forces practitioners to pay dues to organizations they may not wish to join in order to access tools essential to their business.

The case had a difficult start. In late March 2026, a Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that the federal antitrust and Fair Housing Act claims be dismissed without prejudice — finding that the complaint as written did not adequately plead the required elements of a tying claim. However, in late April 2026, the federal court granted the plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint, giving them another opportunity to replead the dismissed claims with more specific factual allegations.

What makes DeYoung significant: It is the most geographically specific of the three cases, targeting the Louisiana MLS ecosystem with named local association defendants. If the second amended complaint survives dismissal, it could produce the first detailed judicial analysis of how local Realtor association membership requirements interact with MLS access obligations in a specific regional market. NAR has stated it "supports pro-competitive, pro-consumer local broker marketplaces" and that "each local MLS sets their own requirements for determining access to the platform" — a defense that essentially argues the bundling is a local, not national, phenomenon.

Hardy v. NAR: The Michigan Appeal

Filed: 2024 | Court: Eastern District of Michigan (now Sixth Circuit) | Status: Appeal Pending

Hardy v. NAR is the most procedurally advanced of the three cases — and the most legally consequential, because it is now before a federal circuit court of appeals.

Plaintiffs Douglas Hardy, Glenn Champion, and Dylan Tent challenged NAR's mandatory membership requirements for MLS access in Michigan, specifically targeting the Realcomp MLS. On March 30, 2026, Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey of the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the case, ruling that the mandatory membership claims were "misleading and contradicted by reality." The judge found that the plaintiffs had not adequately demonstrated that MLS access was actually conditioned on Realtor association membership in a way that constituted an antitrust violation.

On April 23, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is now pending, with a briefing schedule expected to be set in May or June 2026.

What makes Hardy significant: The Sixth Circuit covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee — a large swath of the Midwest and upper South. If the Sixth Circuit reverses the dismissal and finds that the district court applied the wrong legal standard to the tying claim, that ruling would become binding precedent in all four states. It would also create persuasive authority for plaintiffs in DeYoung, Zea, and any future MLS membership cases filed elsewhere. Conversely, if the Sixth Circuit affirms the dismissal, it will make it significantly harder for plaintiffs to advance similar theories in that circuit for years.

The core question on appeal is whether Judge Grey correctly assessed the "voluntary" nature of NAR membership for MLS access purposes. The plaintiffs will argue that the practical reality — that MLS access is effectively impossible without Realtor association membership in most markets — is what matters, not the formal structure of the rules. NAR will argue that the formal structure is exactly what the antitrust analysis requires.

Zea v. NAR: The Florida Flat-Fee Brokerage Case

Filed: 2024 | Court: Middle District of Florida | Status: Ongoing — Amended Complaint Filed

Zea v. NAR is the most distinctive of the three cases in terms of plaintiff profile. The Zea plaintiffs are flat-fee brokers — a business model that offers sellers limited MLS listing services for a flat fee rather than a percentage commission. The complaint alleges that NAR's rules, as enforced through Florida MLS platforms, suppress the flat-fee brokerage model by conditioning MLS access on membership in Realtor associations that actively oppose the flat-fee approach.

The case was originally dismissed in full, but the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in late April 2026, adding new factual allegations and refining the legal theory. The amended complaint specifically attacks NAR's failure to enforce its own anti-steering rules — arguing that NAR's selective enforcement creates a two-tier MLS marketplace that disadvantages flat-fee brokers and the sellers who use them.

What makes Zea significant: The flat-fee brokerage angle gives Zea a consumer harm story that DeYoung and Hardy lack. Sellers who use flat-fee brokers are paying less for listing services — and the plaintiffs argue that NAR's membership requirements and selective enforcement make it harder for those sellers to compete effectively in the MLS marketplace. If Zea survives to discovery, the plaintiffs could seek documents showing how NAR and Florida MLS operators have treated flat-fee listings differently from full-service listings — evidence that could be damaging not just in this case but in the broader commission litigation landscape.

Milko v. NAR: The Georgia Tying Case

Filed: April 2025 | Court: Northern District of Georgia | Status: Ongoing — Motion to Dismiss Pending

Milko v. NAR is the newest of the four cases and the only one filed by a single individual plaintiff. Jerome E. Milko, a Maryland-licensed real estate broker, filed his antitrust complaint against NAR in the Northern District of Georgia in April 2025. Unlike DeYoung, Hardy, and Zea — which all name local MLS operators or Realtor associations as co-defendants — Milko names only NAR as a defendant, making it the most direct challenge to NAR's national rule structure.

The complaint alleges that NAR's three-way agreement — the rule requiring practitioners to maintain simultaneous membership in their local, state, and national Realtor associations — constitutes an illegal tying arrangement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Milko argues that NAR uses its market power in the MLS access market to compel practitioners to purchase Realtor association membership at all three levels, regardless of whether they want or benefit from that membership.

NAR's coordinated response: On April 3, 2026, NAR filed the Hardy dismissal (E.D. Mich., March 30, 2026) as supplemental authority in Milko, arguing that the Georgia court should follow Judge Grey's reasoning and dismiss the case. The same day, NAR filed the Hardy ruling as supplemental authority in the Diaz case (C.D. Cal.) and the Eytalis case (N.D. Tex.) — signaling a coordinated national strategy to use the Hardy dismissal as a template for defeating all pending mandatory membership challenges.

What makes Milko significant: Milko is the clearest test of whether the Hardy dismissal will function as a nationwide precedent-by-persuasion. If the Northern District of Georgia follows Hardy and dismisses Milko, NAR will have two district court dismissals to point to in every remaining mandatory membership case. If the Georgia court declines to follow Hardy and allows Milko to proceed, it will create a circuit split at the district level — increasing the likelihood that one of these cases eventually reaches the Supreme Court. The case is also notable for its single-plaintiff posture: Milko is a working broker making a direct, personal claim that NAR's rules have harmed his business, which gives the case a concrete, sympathetic factual record that class action cases sometimes lack.

Side-by-Side Comparison

What Would Success Look Like?

None of these cases is likely to produce a quick resolution. All four are in early procedural stages — three are fighting to survive motions to dismiss or amended complaint rulings, and one is at the beginning of a multi-year appellate process. But success in any one of them would have significant industry consequences.

A ruling that NAR's mandatory membership requirements constitute an illegal tying arrangement would not automatically end the Realtor association membership model. It would, however, require NAR and local associations to restructure the relationship between membership and MLS access — potentially allowing practitioners to access MLS platforms without joining NAR or paying NAR dues. That restructuring would reduce NAR's membership revenue, reduce its political influence, and fundamentally alter the economics of local Realtor associations.

For real estate agents, the practical question is simpler: if you could access your MLS without paying NAR dues, would you? The plaintiffs in all four cases are betting that the answer — for a significant number of practitioners — is yes.

What This Means for Your Clients

Most buyers and sellers have never heard of DeYoung, Hardy, Zea, or Milko. But the underlying question — whether real estate professionals should be required to join a trade association as a condition of doing their jobs — is one that resonates with consumers who have already been sensitized to commission transparency issues by the Sitzer/Burnett verdict and the NAR settlement.

If any of these cases produces a significant ruling in 2026 or 2027, it will generate media coverage that reaches your clients. The agents who are prepared to explain what the ruling means — and what it does not mean — will be the ones who build trust and authority in their local markets.

The comparison table above is a good starting point for that conversation. The key message: these are not commission cases. And with four active cases now advancing simultaneously — in Louisiana, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia — the pressure on NAR's membership model is broader than at any point in the organization's history. They are about the structure of the real estate industry itself, and the question of whether the current membership model is a feature or a bug.

Image Credit: Nano Banana

This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For the latest developments in these cases, visit PropertyPleadings.com.