Turn up the volume on your real estate success at Inman On Tour: Nashville! Connect with industry trailblazers and top-tier speakers to gain powerful insights, cutting-edge strategies, and invaluable connections. Elevate your business and achieve your boldest goals — all with Music City magic. Register now.
A Texas real estate broker has updated her antitrust lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors, alleging she was “forced” to pay dues for inactive agents in order to comply with the trade group’s membership rules and maintain access to her local multiple listing service.
TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY FOR JANUARY
On Jan. 23, broker Luz de Amor Eytalis of Strategic Realty filed her third amended complaint in the case, which names NAR, the Texas Association of Realtors, the Wichita Falls Association of Realtors and the Wichita Falls Association of Realtors MLS as defendants.
The suit targets NAR’s three-way agreement, which requires those who want to join any Realtor association to join at the local, state and national level and pay attendant dues, and NAR’s “fair share” dues formula, which requires brokers to pay membership dues for all licensed agents affiliated with their firms.
The suit also takes aim at a rule enforced by many Realtor-affiliated MLSs, but not by NAR, that requires Realtor membership to subscribe to the MLS.
Eytalis filed the suit pro se, meaning she is representing herself in the case.
While Eytalis’s suit originally came to six pages, the latest version is now twice that length and contains additional details about her experience as a broker allegedly forced to pay dues for inactive agents to not have her membership terminated and, therefore, her access to the MLS cut off.
The latest complaint alleges NAR, TAR, WFAR and WFMLS “have engaged in monopolistic practices that unlawfully restrict competition in the real estate market by requiring brokers to join multiple associations as a precondition for accessing MLS services, imposing a financial burden without proportional benefit and penalizing agencies if members opt to not join the membership impeding their ability to do business.”
According to the complaint, Eytalis notified WFAR in 2023 of the inactive status of two agents and asked that the trade group “consider waiving their fees due to their inactivity and non-use of membership services,” but WFAR declined and sent Eytalis an invoice for nearly $3,500.
“This invoice was issued with a 60-day compliance deadline under threat of membership termination,” the complaint says.
“Payment was finally made in early November 2023, prior to the actual due date for membership dues, which typically occur at the end of the year.
“This process created significant confusion and undue hardship for Plaintiff, who had previously paid dues faithfully for over a decade without requesting exceptions.”
The complaint also alleges that WFAR violated an article of its own bylaws, “which requires fees to be assessed equitably and prohibits penalties for agents who are not actively utilizing services.”
Eytalis then allegedly received another bill of more than $1,700 in June 2024 for an agent that Eytalis informed WFAR “was not in the area and had no communication with Plaintiff following sponsorship.”
WFAR Executive Vice President Greg Hadsell then allegedly told Eytalis in writing “that portions of the invoice, including assessment fees, MLS fees, and Sentrilock fees, would be removed due to the termination of sponsorship” for the agent, but Eytalis allegedly never received an updated invoice.
Inman has reached out to WFAR’s Hadsell for comment and will update this story if and when a response is received.
Eytalis’s complaint alleges that, in violation of federal antitrust laws, NAR, TAR and WFAR have created a “‘tying arrangement’ in which access to MLS services, a separate product essential for real estate transactions, is conditioned on purchasing memberships to NAR, TAR, and WFAR” that agents and brokers “may not need or want,” thereby disproportionately burdening small and minority-owned brokerages and stifling competition from potential rival trade groups.
“NAR sets national policies, which are implemented by TAR and WFAR, resulting in mandatory membership and penalties for noncompliance,” the complaint says.
“WFAR directly enforces these policies through its bylaws and dues structure, tying access to MLS services to membership dues and restricting competition for brokers seeking alternative solutions.”
The complaint points to the trade groups’ use of NAR’s “fair share” dues formula, which the complaint asserts “financially penalizes brokers for not affiliating all licensed agents with the association.”
“The practice of requiring brokers to pay for all salespersons in the firm, regardless of their membership status or activity, significantly limited Plaintiff’s ability to sponsor additional non-member agents over the past ten years,” the complaint says.
“These mandatory fees penalize brokers financially and create barriers to entry for potential agents, and restricted Plaintiff’s income-generating potential in a way that is perhaps immeasurable.”
“This policy, enforced through mandatory fees and penalties, directly harms Plaintiff’s ability to operate competitively,” the complaint adds.
In a statement, an NAR spokesperson told Inman, “We will respond to the Plaintiff’s specific claims in our Motion to Dismiss, due February 6.”
The complaint alleges violations of the federal Sherman Act and Clayton Act as well as breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
The complaint seeks a “permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing their forced membership and tying arrangements,” an “order requiring Defendants to establish alternative MLS systems that are not contingent upon membership in NAR, TAR, WFAR, or WFMLS,” and an “order mandating the establishment of a transparent and impartial dispute resolution system to address complaints brought by members without bias or undue financial burden.”
The complaint also asks for compensatory damages of no less than $5.8 million “to compensate Plaintiff for the harm caused by Defendants’ unlawful conduct, including loss of income due to restricted income-generating potential over the past ten years,” for treble damages under the Sherman Act, and restitution, “including the refund of excessive fees,” among other items.
Read Eytalis’s third amended complaint (re-load page if document is not visible):