Three Lawsuits You Haven't Heard Of Are Quietly Reshaping the MLS Membership Fight

By Frances Flynn Thorsen

While Everyone Was Watching Batton 2...

While everyone has been watching Batton 2 — tracking which defendants are settling, who's opting into Tuccori, and what eXp and Redfin will say in their June 2 joint status report — three other lawsuits have been quietly advancing through federal courts. They don't have the billion-dollar settlement numbers of Sitzer/Burnett. They don't have the celebrity defendant roster of Batton 2. But they may be asking a more fundamental question than any case that came before them.

The question isn't whether commission rates were fixed. It's whether the entire structure of NAR membership — the mandatory three-way affiliation that ties local, state, and national Realtor associations together — is itself an antitrust violation.

If the courts say yes, the implications for every MLS in the country would be far more significant than any commission settlement.

The Three Cases

DeYoung v. NAR: Louisiana Brokers Take On the Three-Way Membership Rule

The DeYoung case was filed in the Middle District of Louisiana in January 2025 by four plaintiffs: brokers Carla DeYoung and Carlos Alvarez, and agents Tammy Jo Williams and Darlene Currie. Their complaint names NAR, 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 core allegation is straightforward but legally significant: the defendants have conditioned access to MLS data and MLS-related platforms on compulsory membership in local, state, and national Realtor associations. The plaintiffs argue this is an illegal tying arrangement — you cannot get the thing you need (MLS access) without also buying the thing you don't want (mandatory association membership at three levels).

The original federal antitrust and Fair Housing Act claims were dismissed without prejudice in late March 2026. But on May 1, 2026, a federal court granted the plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint, reviving both the antitrust claims and the Fair Housing Act claims. That's a meaningful development: the court didn't close the door. It opened it again.

What makes DeYoung particularly interesting is the Fair Housing Act angle. Most MLS antitrust cases focus purely on Sherman Act claims. Weaving in Fair Housing allegations — arguing that mandatory membership structures have a disparate impact on protected classes of agents or consumers — opens a second legal theory that is harder to dismiss on purely procedural grounds.

Hardy v. NAR: Michigan Agents Take the Fight to the Sixth Circuit

The Hardy case was filed by plaintiffs Douglas Hardy, Glenn Champion, and Dylan Tent, challenging NAR's mandatory membership requirements for access to the Realcomp MLS in Michigan. The case was dismissed on March 30, 2026 by Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey, who found the MLS-access claims "misleading and contradicted by reality."

That dismissal language is unusually sharp. Judges don't often describe a plaintiff's claims as "contradicted by reality" — it suggests the court found the factual premise of the complaint to be weak, not just the legal theory. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 23, 2026, and on May 1, 2026, the formal appeal was docketed.

The Sixth Circuit will now have to decide whether Judge Grey's reading of the facts was correct, or whether the plaintiffs' theory — that NAR membership is effectively a precondition for Realcomp MLS access — deserves a fuller hearing. The outcome matters beyond Michigan: if the Sixth Circuit finds the theory viable, it creates circuit-level precedent that could revive similar claims in other jurisdictions.

Zea v. NAR: A Flat-Fee Broker Fights Back

Jorge Zea, who operates snapflatfee.com, filed suit alleging a coordinated scheme to suppress flat-fee brokerages. His original complaint was dismissed in full, but on May 1, 2026, he filed an amended complaint re-alleging the core theory: that NAR and its co-defendants engaged in anticompetitive and exclusionary practices specifically designed to prevent flat-fee brokerages from competing on equal terms in MLS-dependent markets.

The Zea case has a jurisdictional wrinkle that makes it legally interesting. A Florida magistrate judge has recommended dismissing CT Realtors, Smart MLS, and WeSERV from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction — meaning those defendants don't have sufficient connections to Florida to be sued there. That recommendation, if adopted by the district court, would narrow the defendant pool but would not end the case. Zea would continue against the remaining defendants.

The flat-fee brokerage theory is distinct from the buyer-broker commission theory at the center of Sitzer/Burnett and Batton. Zea isn't arguing that sellers were overcharged because buyers' agents were paid through the listing commission. He's arguing that the entire MLS ecosystem was structured to make flat-fee models unworkable — that the rules were designed to protect full-service brokerages from price competition, not just to fix commission rates.

Why These Three Cases Matter Together

Read individually, each of these cases looks like a long shot. DeYoung is on its second amended complaint after an initial dismissal. Hardy lost at the district court level and is now on appeal. Zea is fighting jurisdictional battles while trying to keep his core theory alive.

But read together, they represent something more significant: a sustained, multi-front legal challenge to the foundational architecture of NAR membership and MLS access. The Sitzer/Burnett and Batton cases attacked the commission-sharing rules. These three cases are attacking the membership structure itself.

What This Means for Real Estate Agents

The commission cases — Sitzer/Burnett, Batton, Moehrl — changed how agents get paid and how buyer representation agreements work. Those changes are already in effect. Agents have adapted.

The membership cases are asking a different question: does an agent have to join NAR, a state association, and a local association just to access the MLS? If the answer turns out to be "no, that's an illegal condition," the downstream effects would be profound. MLS access could become available to licensed agents regardless of association membership. The revenue model of local and state REALTOR® associations would be fundamentally disrupted. The three-way membership rule — which has been the backbone of NAR's organizational structure for decades — could be legally untenable.

None of these cases has won yet. DeYoung is still in the amended complaint stage. Hardy is at the beginning of an appellate process that could take years. Zea is still fighting to keep all his defendants in the case. But the fact that courts are allowing these theories to proceed — granting leave to amend, accepting appeals — means the legal system has not closed the door on the membership challenge.

For agents, the practical advice is the same as it has been throughout this litigation wave: stay informed, understand what your association membership actually provides you, and be ready to explain to clients why you belong to the organizations you belong to. The value proposition of NAR membership is being litigated in federal courts. Agents who can articulate that value clearly — independent of the legal outcome — are the ones who will maintain client trust regardless of how these cases resolve.

Agent Talking Points

If a client or colleague asks about these cases, here are three things to say:

On DeYoung: "There's a case in Louisiana arguing that requiring agents to join three levels of REALTOR® associations just to access the MLS is anticompetitive. The court gave the plaintiffs a second chance to make their argument. We'll see if the theory holds up."

On Hardy: "A Michigan case that was dismissed at the district court level is now being appealed. The Sixth Circuit will decide whether the judge was right that the claims were 'contradicted by reality,' or whether the plaintiffs deserve a fuller hearing."

On Zea: "A flat-fee brokerage owner in Florida is arguing that the entire MLS system was designed to prevent flat-fee models from competing. He's on his second complaint, and the case is still alive."

The through-line for all three: "These cases aren't about commission rates. They're about whether the membership structure that controls MLS access is legal. That's a bigger question, and it's still being answered."

DISCLOSURE: This content is for informational and journalistic purposes regarding real estate litigation and transparency. The author is an active licensee with eXp Realty LLC in State College, PA (License No. RS148436A) and the author of PropertyPleadings.com. ; however, this report is independent of that affiliation. This article does not constitute legal advice.