Real Estate Lawsuit Cases: Antitrust, Property Rights, Fraud

Real estate lawsuit cases in the United States right now are dominated by one story: the antitrust litigation over broker commissions that has produced more than $1 billion in settlements, forced the National Association of Realtors to rewrite its rules, and changed how homes are bought and sold nationwide. Alongside those cases sit a smaller set of landmark Supreme Court property rights decisions and a steady stream of fraud prosecutions. This is where the major cases stand, what they decided, and what they mean for the people involved in a transaction today.

The Commission Antitrust Cases

A connected set of class actions against NAR and the country’s largest brokerages alleges that NAR’s rules forced home sellers to pay inflated commissions to buyer-side brokers through a system baked into the Multiple Listing Service. The cases have produced the largest wave of settlements in the industry’s history.

Burnett v. NAR

In October 2023, a federal jury in Missouri ordered NAR, Keller Williams, and HomeServices of America to pay nearly $1.8 billion in damages to a class of home sellers. RE/MAX and Anywhere Real Estate had already settled before trial for $55 million and $83.5 million.¹

Facing the possibility of trebled damages above $5 billion, NAR agreed to a $418 million settlement and sweeping rule changes. The court granted final approval on November 26, 2024.² HomeServices of America, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, settled separately for $250 million.³

Moehrl, Gibson, and Keel

Moehrl v. NAR, a certified antitrust class action filed in 2019 in the Northern District of Illinois, has secured more than $997 million in settlements across multiple defendant groups. The case remains active against non-settling defendants. In February 2026, a $42 million settlement with William Raveis Real Estate, Hanna Holdings, Windermere, Exit Realty, and William L. Lyon & Associates received final approval.²

Gibson v. NAR, consolidated with the Umpa case in April 2024, targets a broader set of defendants including Compass, Redfin, Weichert, and Douglas Elliman.⁴ As of June 2025, more than 2.5 million claims had been filed by settlement class members.⁵ In April 2026, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, the parent of HomeServices, was denied summary judgment after the court ruled that the $250 million HomeServices settlement had been priced to exclude the parent company’s liability.⁶

Keel v. Washington Fine Properties, filed in January 2025, targeted brokerages excluded from NAR’s own settlement. Side Inc., House of Seven Gables, the Brooklyn New York MLS, and others collectively agreed to pay $11.465 million, with final approval granted on June 24, 2025.⁷ The lawsuit and proposed settlement were filed simultaneously, and preliminary approval came eight days later.⁸

Across all related cases, aggregate settlements have surpassed $1.049 billion.⁹

Batton: The Buyer-Side Track

Burnett, Moehrl, Gibson, and Keel were brought by home sellers. A parallel line of cases attacks the same commission structure from the buyer’s side. Batton v. NAR, originally filed in January 2021 and refiled with new plaintiffs after an initial dismissal, alleges that NAR’s rules inflated commissions paid indirectly by homebuyers.¹⁰ Plaintiffs’ expert estimates individual damages at $8,524 per buyer, with total potential damages in the tens of billions across the subject MLSs.¹¹

Keller Williams settled Batton claims for $20 million in February 2026, and RE/MAX settled for $8.5 million.¹² In April 2026, NAR reached a separate agreement to resolve buyer-side claims through Tuccori v. At World Properties, agreeing to pay $52.25 million into a settlement fund, with most payments scheduled to begin after June 2028.¹³ NAR described the Tuccori deal as offering broader protection for the industry than any prior settlement.¹⁴ A second buyer-side case, Batton 2, names Compass, eXp, Redfin, and Douglas Elliman among other defendants.¹⁰

What the Commission Settlements Changed

The practice changes required by the NAR settlement took effect on August 17, 2024, and apply even while the appeals are pending. Two shifts matter most. First, listing brokers can no longer advertise buyer-broker compensation on the MLS. Under the old system, sellers’ listings routinely offered a buyer’s agent a commission of roughly 2.5% to 3%, which critics argued locked sellers into paying and encouraged buyer agents to steer clients toward higher-commission listings. Sellers can still choose to cover a buyer’s agent fee, but any such arrangement happens outside the MLS.¹⁵

Second, agents must now sign a written agreement with a buyer before showing them homes. The agreement has to state the agent’s compensation in specific, objective terms, a flat fee, an hourly rate, or a percentage, and the amount cannot be left open-ended or tied to whatever a seller happens to offer.¹⁶ Every listing agreement and pre-closing disclosure must include a conspicuous statement that commissions are fully negotiable and not set by law.¹⁵

So far, actual commission rates have moved only modestly. A Federal Reserve analysis published in May 2025 noted that buyer agent commissions “may have declined some but have remained at relatively high levels,” partly because sellers’ agents have found ways to share commission information outside the MLS.¹⁷ An AccountTECH study of more than 224,000 transactions found buyer agent commissions averaged 2.55% as of mid-January 2025, identical to the average a year earlier. A Redfin survey of its agents found that 48% said rates had stayed about the same after the settlement, while 43% reported some declines.¹⁸

Where the Appeals Stand

None of the major seller-side settlements are fully final. Class members who objected to the NAR, HomeServices, Anywhere, RE/MAX, and Keller Williams settlements appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals beginning in May 2024.¹⁹ Oral argument took place on January 14, 2026, before Judges Lavenski Smith, Ralph Erickson, and Jonathan Kobes.²⁰

Appellants argued that the settlements amount to “pennies-on-the-dollar” for a nationwide class of sellers and that the trial court approved the amounts without reviewing defendants’ financial data.²⁰ A separate objector argued that homebuyer claims were improperly released by the seller-side settlements and that buyer claims involve different damage theories.²¹ NAR’s counsel responded that the $418 million settlement consumes more than half of NAR’s available assets and was necessary to end nationwide litigation. As of mid-2026, no ruling has issued, and settlement benefits cannot be distributed until the appeals are resolved.²²

DOJ Antitrust Scrutiny Continues

Private class actions are not the only exposure NAR faces. The DOJ Antitrust Division opened an investigation into NAR’s “Participation Rule” and “Clear Cooperation Policy” in 2018 and reached a proposed consent judgment with NAR in 2020. The DOJ withdrew that deal in July 2021 and reopened its investigation. NAR challenged the DOJ’s authority to do so, but the D.C. Circuit ruled in April 2024 that the DOJ’s earlier closing letter did not permanently bar it from reopening the probe.²³

During the NAR settlement approval process in November 2024, the DOJ filed a statement of interest warning that the private settlements do not shield the industry from further government antitrust scrutiny.² In March 2025, the DOJ filed a supplemental statement in the MLS PIN case, pushing back on industry characterizations of its position on Clear Cooperation policies and leaving the door open for enforcement against exceptions that benefit large brokerages.²⁴

Landmark Property Rights Decisions

A different line of real estate cases concerns the limits on what the government can do with private property, and these decisions still define the rules today.

Eminent Domain

The government’s power to take private land for public use, provided it pays fair market value, has been recognized since the earliest days of the republic. In Kohl v. United States (1875), the Supreme Court upheld federal condemnation of land for a post office, calling the power “essential to [the government’s] independent existence.”²⁵ The most controversial modern decision is Kelo v. City of New London (2005), which allowed the transfer of private property to a private nonprofit entity for economic development purposes. The ruling prompted a wave of state legislation restricting eminent domain powers.²⁶

Regulatory Takings and the Right to Exclude

When the government does not physically take property but regulates it heavily, the owner may bring an “inverse condemnation” claim demanding compensation. Penn Central v. New York City (1978) established the flexible balancing test courts use for regulatory takings, weighing factors including whether the owner’s current use of the property remains viable.²⁶

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) strengthened property owners’ hand considerably. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court held that a California regulation granting union organizers access to agricultural employers’ property was a per se physical taking requiring compensation, whether the invasion was temporary or intermittent.²⁷ Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the right to exclude is “one of the most treasured rights” of property ownership, and that the government cannot avoid takings liability by characterizing a physical invasion as a regulation.²⁸ When the government physically appropriates property rather than merely restricting its use, compensation is required as a matter of law.

Zoning and Disclosure

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) established the foundation for modern zoning law, upholding zoning regulations as a valid exercise of state police power to promote public health, safety, and general welfare. On the disclosure side, Johnson v. Davis (1985) established that sellers and agents must disclose known material facts that could affect a property’s value, a principle now codified in some form in virtually every state.²⁹

Real Estate Fraud Cases

Fraud litigation runs on its own track, from deed theft affecting individual homeowners to multi-million-dollar schemes targeting federal insurance programs. In United States v. Aronov, filed in 2021 in the Eastern District of New York, the government alleged that individuals manipulated HUD’s Pre-Foreclosure Sale Program between 2013 and 2016 by acquiring residential properties at fraudulently depressed prices through non-arm’s-length transactions and submitting false information to lenders and the FHA. The suit, brought under the False Claims Act and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act, alleged millions of dollars in damages to the federal government.³⁰

Deed theft, where fraudsters forge documents to transfer ownership of properties away from their rightful owners, has become an increasing concern in cities with older housing stock and absentee owners. A deed theft ring operating in Queens, New York, led to charges against Marcus Wilcher in December 2022 for targeting run-down homes with absent owners. Federal agencies including the FBI have warned that fraudsters commonly pose as title company or escrow representatives to facilitate unauthorized property transfers.

1
The New York Times. NAR Antitrust Lawsuit
2
Cohen Milstein. Moehrl v. National Association of Realtors, Et Al.
3
AP News. HomeServices Real Estate Commission Lawsuit
4
U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri. Gibson Et Al v. National Association of Realtors Et Al
5
Real Estate News. Judge Gives Final OK to 15 Commissions Settlements
6
Real Estate News. Gibson Claims Against Berkshire Hathaway Energy Will Proceed
7
Real Estate Commission Litigation. Keel Settlement FAQ
8
Inman. Commission Settlement Against Side and Others Gets First Approval
9
Hagens Berman. Real Estate Broker Commissions Antitrust
10
HousingWire. Keller Williams Batton Settlement
11
Real Estate News. Batton Suit Seeks Class Status, Estimates Billions in Damages
12
South Florida Agent Magazine. RE/MAX Batton Antitrust Lawsuit
13
Florida Realtors. NAR Reaches Settlement in Buyer Lawsuit
14
National Association of Realtors. NAR Reaches Agreement to Resolve Nationwide Homebuyer Claims
15
National Association of Realtors. NAR Settlement FAQs
16
National Association of Realtors. What the NAR Settlement Means for Home Buyers and Sellers
17
Federal Reserve. Commissions and Omissions: Trends in Real Estate Broker Compensation
18
Real Estate News. Commissions Rebound Following Post-Settlement Decline
19
Real Estate Commission Litigation. Burnett Settlement
20
Real Estate News. Appellants Have Their Final Say About Commissions Settlements
21
Bloomberg Law. Huge Realtor Settlement Appeals Get Probed for Fairness, Scope
22
Real Estate Commission Litigation. NAR Settlement
23
Justia. National Association of Realtors v. United States, No. 23-5065
24
Real Estate News. DOJ Calls Out Misleading Claims About Its Take on Clear Cooperation
25
U.S. Department of Justice. History of Federal Use of Eminent Domain
26
FindLaw. Eminent Domain Cases and History
27
Supreme Court of the United States. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. ___ (2021)
28
Oyez. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
29
Houston Association of Realtors. 8 Court Rulings That Shaped the Realtor Profession
30
HUD Office of Inspector General. United States Files Civil Fraud Suit Against Three Individuals and Multiple Corporate Entities