The flat-fee brokerage dismissed its antitrust case against the MLS but kept as defendants Keller Williams, the National Association of Realtors, Anywhere, HomeServices of America and RE/MAX.
Whether it’s refining your business model, mastering new technologies, or discovering strategies to capitalize on the next market surge, Inman Connect New York will prepare you to take bold steps forward. The Next Chapter is about to begin. Be part of it. Join us and thousands of real estate leaders Jan. 22-24, 2025.
Flat-fee brokerage Homie has released Utah’s largest multiple listing service from its antitrust suit alleging the National Association of Realtors and other major real estate companies conspired to prevent competition in the industry, including by boycotting lower-commission listings.
On Friday, Oct. 11, Homie informed the U.S. District Court in Utah that it was dismissing its complaint against Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service, Inc., which does business as UtahRealEstate.com. The suit was dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning Homie can choose to re-file the claims at a later date.
“This dismissal applies only as against URE but no other defendant in the Action,” the filing reads.
The remaining defendants are NAR and major franchisors Anywhere, HomeServices of America, RE/MAX and Keller Williams. They have until Oct. 18 to respond to Homie’s complaint in court — a task Homie has now taken off of UtahRealEstate.com’s plate.
Brad Bjelke
“UtahRealEstate.com is pleased that it was voluntarily dismissed from Homie Technology’s antitrust lawsuit before having to spend significant resources to dismiss or defend the case,” UtahRealEstate.com CEO Brad Bjelke told Inman in a statement.
“URE continues to comply with all antitrust and other legal requirements, and the company maintains that it has no liability to Homie.”
Homie declined to comment for this story, citing ongoing litigation, and pointed to its website for its stance on the lawsuit published when it first filed its complaint.
Homie’s complaint argues that NAR and its fellow defendants violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Utah Antitrust Act and committed tortious interference with economic relations.
“Defendants and their co-conspirators knowingly and intentionally interfered with Homie’s existing and potential economic relations, including by steering consumers away from Homie’s clients, causing Homie’s clients to cancel their contracts with Homie, and causing Homie’s business partners not to renew their existing contracts with Homie,” the complaint reads.
“Defendants and their co-conspirators interfered with Homie’s existing and potential economic relations by improper means and for improper purposes, including by utilizing anticompetitive rules to steer consumers away from Homie and implementing an illegal group boycott against Homie.”
The suit challenges two rules that have drawn scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as well as other antitrust lawsuits: NAR’s now-defunct Participation Rule, which required listing brokers to offer buyer brokers a commission in order to submit a listing to a Realtor-affiliated MLS, and the still-in-effect Clear Cooperation Policy, which requires listing brokers to submit listings to Realtor-affiliated MLSs within one business day of marketing them publicly.
“Because all of NAR’s Exclusionary Rules and Policies were promulgated and enforced through the MLS, Homie attempted to avoid the MLS entirely by marketing properties off the MLS, including through its website and mobile app, as so-called private listings,” the complaint says.
“The Clear Cooperation Policy eliminated this possibility, injuring Homie by eliminating alternative marketing avenues that would have allowed it to avoid the pervasive effects of Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct, including NAR’s Exclusionary Rules and Policies and the tacit and express boycotts of Homie facilitated by NAR’s Exclusionary Rules and Policies.
“By excluding Homie in Utah, Defendants were also able to exclude Homie nationwide by frustrating its plans for nationwide expansion. Homie’s inability to compete effectively in Utah deprived it of the investment capital and scale necessary to enter markets nationwide. Thus, Defendants harmed consumers in Utah and nationwide by excluding Homie in Utah.”
When Homie filed its suit, NAR told Inman it would respond to the suit’s claims in court.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to note that Homie declined to comment.
Read the dismissal (re-load the page if document is not visible):
Email Andrea V. Brambila.
Like me on Facebook | Follow me on Twitter
