Practice changes related to written buyer agreements and offers of compensation remain in effect.
Judge's gavel

A panel of Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals judges will hear arguments Wednesday in support of and in opposition to the March 2024 Sitzer-Burnett settlement.

Individuals objecting to the settlement—including home sellers who are part of the settlement class, a law professor and a plaintiff in a separate litigation brought by home buyers in the Batton case—filed an appeal within days of the district court approving the settlement in November 2024.

Now, more than a year later, they’ll have their chance to argue for a reversal of the district court decision before a three-judge panel.

Those objecting to the settlement argue, among other things, that the district court erred when it approved the settlement because plaintiffs lacked legal standing, the settlement payout and the proposed distribution are not equitable and the settlement inappropriately includes home buyers.

Both the plaintiffs and defendants, including NAR, will provide arguments in support of the settlement highlighting that the district court acted well within its broad discretion and that any arguable errors—which NAR doesn’t believe there are any—would not change the propriety of settlement approval, explains NAR General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Legal Jon Waclawski. “After all, settlements are a manifestation of tradeoffs,” he says, adding that this settlement reflects that reality and is in line with the law and court precedent.

“Appeals are a routine part of complex litigation, and NAR will continue to defend the settlement on appeal,” Waclawski says.

Settlement Refresher

Beginning in 2019, the Sitzer-Burnett case was an antitrust class action lawsuit filed against NAR, Anywhere Real Estate, RE/MAX, Keller Williams and HomeServices of America.

The plaintiffs, who represented home sellers, alleged that NAR and various real estate brokerages conspired to inflate broker commissions and took particular issue with cooperative compensation.

The case went to trial in the fall of 2023, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs. As a result, defendants faced a large amount of damages and a pile-on of copycat lawsuits. While maintaining that the practice of cooperative compensation was pro-competitive and pro-consumer, NAR and other litigants chose to settle the case.

The March 2024 settlement requires significant changes to NAR policies and provides more than $1 billion in relief to a nationwide class of home sellers in exchange for a comprehensive release of claims.

In particular, it secured the release of liability of more than 1 million NAR members, all state/territorial and local REALTOR® associations, REALTOR® MLSs, NAR’s affiliate organizations and all brokerages with an NAR member as principal that had a residential transaction volume in 2022 of $2 billion or below. MLSs and brokerages that chose to opt in to the agreement were also released from liability.

As part of the settlement, NAR agreed to pay $418 million over four years. The association paid $197 million in February 2025 and will make its next payment of $72 million in February 2026, NAR Treasurer Craig Sanford said during NAR’s last Board of Directors meeting.

Practice Changes Remain

While the settlement appeal is underway, the practice changes prompted by the settlement will remain in place. Those changes require written buyer broker agreements and ban offers of cooperative compensation on a multiple listing service.

“Importantly, the appeals filed do not undo the practice changes or any other part of the court approved settlement,” Waclawski says. “The appeal, in large part, challenges certain aspects of how the settlement was approved, rather than the underlying practice changes themselves, which are already in effect and governing nationwide.”

NAR maintains that these changes and relief granted to the nationwide class provide both increased choice and transparency for both home buyers and sellers in the marketplace as well as fair and equitable relief to the class.

Waclawski noted that the appellate court’s decision will take time and could come in late summer or early fall this year.