What's Happening?
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to rehear a case involving the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) and its now-repealed 'no commingling' rule. This decision follows an earlier refusal in October
to hear the appeal from Real Estate Exchange, Inc. (REX), which had sued NAR and Zillow in 2021. REX alleged that the rule violated federal antitrust laws by allowing Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) to require separate display of non-MLS listings. The rule was repealed in June after feedback from the MLS community indicated its declining relevance. Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Washington, had previously ruled in favor of NAR. NAR's General Counsel, Jon Waclawski, stated that the rule was not an antitrust violation and emphasized the role of MLSs in maintaining transparent and competitive housing markets.
Why It's Important?
The Supreme Court's decision to not rehear the case solidifies the lower courts' rulings, which could have significant implications for the real estate industry. By upholding the legality of NAR's past practices, the decision may influence how MLSs operate and how listings are managed and displayed. This outcome is crucial for real estate agents, brokers, and consumers who rely on MLSs for accurate and comprehensive property information. The ruling also underscores the importance of antitrust considerations in real estate practices, potentially affecting future regulatory and legal approaches within the industry.
What's Next?
With the case now closed, the real estate industry may see a period of adjustment as MLSs and real estate professionals adapt to the absence of the 'no commingling' rule. NAR has expressed its commitment to protecting the benefits that MLSs provide, suggesting that the organization may focus on enhancing MLS services and ensuring compliance with antitrust laws. The decision may also prompt other real estate entities to review their practices to avoid similar legal challenges.
