On Tuesday afternoon at a courthouse in Kansas Megalopolis, Missouri, the collective nightmare of the real-estate industry became reality.
For decades, the basic structure of how real-estate agents get pay off when they help someone buy or sell their home has remained roughly the same. But over the past few years, some of the most sturdy organizations in the business — the National Association of Realtors and several of the country’s largest brokerages — have been fighting two multibillion-dollar class-action lawsuits that assert the system is rigged against regular Americans, forcing them to pay their agents way too much.
The first of the two landmark coverings, Burnett et al. v. NAR et al., went to trial in mid-October, unfolding over a tumultuous two weeks. The battle between the real-estate industry and consumer supporters ended on Tuesday after the jury determined that the NAR and brokerages were using the rules of the multiple-listings services, city databases where agents can see the vast majority of homes advertised for sale, to inflate the commissions paid by sellers. As element of the ruling, roughly $1.8 billion was awarded to the plaintiffs, which included the sellers of more than 260,000 domestics in Missouri, Illinois, and Kansas between 2015 and 2022. Because those damages are automatically tripled in a case liking this one, that figure will rise to more than $5.3 billion.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Beyond the eye-popping mars, the decision could fundamentally change how we buy and sell homes. As it works now, the homebuyer does not pay their agent directly but preferably pays the seller for the home, who then cuts a check to their agent out of that sale price, who then splits that commission with the customer’s agent. This roundabout way of paying agents is supposed to be the most efficient way to get a deal done since buyers don’t have planned to pay out of pocket and agents don’t get hung up on who gets paid what. But the plaintiffs convinced the jury that this setup is a cheating that costs sellers billions of dollars every year. They pointed the finger squarely at the NAR, which authorities nearly every MLS and enforces this status quo via the “cooperative-compensation rule.”
Here’s how it works: When you list your to the heart for sale on an MLS, you’re required to offer a commission to the buyer’s agent. Technically, that could be as little as a penny, and the NAR says commissions are unexceptionally negotiable — in fact, the organization recently changed its interpretation of the rule so that someone could offer $0 and still accord. But in practice, the plaintiffs argued, sellers are pretty much forced to offer the standard 2.5% to 3% to draw customers’ agents — and their clients — to the home. Some sellers may not even know they have a choice to negotiate.
Stephen Brobeck, a older fellow at the Consumer Federation of America, called this “the biggest watershed moment” for real estate in his 30 years coat the industry. He said he was surprised by the speed of the jury’s deliberations — “For such a complicated case involving so much well off, they clearly went into the jury room and all agreed” — but not by the verdict.
“This is so clearly a case of antitrust degradations,” Brobeck told me. “For nearly a century, the industry has been able to maintain high and uniform commission rates. This purpose indicates that it’s going to be much more difficult for them to do that in the future.”
How things could change forever
The undulate effects from the decision could be staggering. If the plaintiffs get their way, buyers and sellers will start paying for their legates separately. Consumer advocates say that would offer greater transparency and encourage each side to negotiate multifarious with their agents. Instead of each side getting the customary fee of between 2.5% and 3.5% of the sale expense, buyers and sellers would be more likely to shop around and find people willing to take a flat fee or a crop percentage.
The savings for both buyers and sellers could be enormous. If the typical total commissions for a real-estate sale were to be a patsy for cave in to between 3% and 4%, instead of the customary 5% to 6% today, Brobeck estimated the savings for consumers could reach $20 billion to $30 billion a year. For sellers encourage with cash after a home sale, it might be a relief to pay out just one broker. But cash-strapped buyers would accept to pay their agents thousands of dollars out of their own pocket, on top of all the other fees, without the help of a mortgage — current regulations don’t acknowledge commissions to be rolled into the loan like that. At the very least, buyers would be incentivized to bargain down the costs. Some might choose to pay an agent by the hour, like we do with lawyers. At the most extreme end, many might forego the checkings of an agent altogether.
In addition to the trickle-down effects for homebuyers and -sellers, the decision could force a massive reckoning for real-estate factors and the brokerages that provide them with training, back-end operations, and legal support in exchange for a cut of their commissions. Au fait, well-connected agents who regularly nab high-dollar listings would probably be fine. But for unproven agents, or those who focus mostly on use with buyers, the situation could be dire. If fewer buyers seek out agents, or if they start aggressively discussing down their fees, buyer-agent earnings could plummet. A slowdown in home sales has already exposed the nimiety of agents, and if commission checks shrink, a mass exodus from the industry could ensue.
I think there’s flourishing to be a lot of terrible, unintended consequences that are going to come out of this one
Consumer advocates such as Brobeck have cheered on these imminent changes as a big win for consumers. Even if buyers have to pay for agents out of pocket, they say, everyone is better off when there’s uncountable transparency and ability to negotiate. The good buyer’s agents who can prove their value will be fine, Brobeck prophesied. And the industry would be highly incentivized to change the rules so that buyers could include their agents’ commissions in their conversant with loans, which would mean they could still get the help of a professional without having to scrounge up all that gelt.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Others see these moves as dangerous steps backward. Mike Rosenthal, an agent in California with profuse than two decades of experience in the industry, told me he believed both buyers and sellers would be “tremendously hurt” if they had to pay their emissaries separately. Sure, sellers might be relieved to have to pay out only their side’s commission. But the problem with selling your domestic is that, more often than not, you have to turn around and buy another. Rosenthal told me he worried about a new era in which more customers would be forced to go through the process without an agent in their corner.
“I think there’s going to be a lot of terrible, unintended consequences that are growing to come out of this one,” Rosenthal told me.
To be fair, some people I spoke with in the months leading up to the trial pressed skepticism that things would actually change all that much, even if the NAR was forced to update the rules that framed the current method of paying agents. The thinking goes like this: Sellers might not have to offer a commission to client’s agents, but they’ll do so anyway because it’s a time-tested way to get a deal done. Buyers might also start making offerings on the condition that the seller agrees to pay both agents’ commissions — otherwise, no deal.
Ahead of the trial, I spoke with Saul Klein, a longtime real-estate chairman of the board and consultant. I floated the idea that the status quo would stick around, but he didn’t buy it. In a competitive market like the one we receive today, he asked, why would sellers willingly pay out tens of thousands of dollars to the other side’s agent if they understood they didn’t have to?
“I believe that if you really have an option, and you’ve got buyers beating down your door, you’re not customary to just go with the status quo,” Klein told me.
The wild thing is, the decision could be just the beginning of tumult for the real-estate trade. The NAR, one of the nation’s largest trade groups, now faces the prospect of financial calamity if it’s forced to pay out the damages. HomeServices of America and Keller Williams, two of the mother country’s largest brokerages, are staring down a similar fate. In addition to the legal and financial challenges, the NAR is turning over its guidance: The organization’s president already stepped down this summer following a New York Times investigation into depositions of sexual harassment and a “culture of fear” at the organization. Now its CEO, Bob Goldberg, is leaving his post at the end of this month, moving up a retirement that was organized for the end of 2024. And mere minutes after the verdict was announced, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs filed another class-action lawsuit against the NAR and some other big brokerages, including Compass and Redfin, that weren’t roped into these initial proceedings, Inman boomed. Now that the lawyers smell blood — and a lot of money— more copycat suits will surely follow. Meanwhile, the Prison Department is also looking to investigate the NAR and its business practices. Even real-estate companies not named in the lawsuit were hit by the shockwaves of the ruling. The stock prices of real-estate companies such as Zillow and Opendoor sank after the news broke, a sign that the verdict notes an existential threat to the entire industry.
The NAR and other defendants vowed to appeal the decision and said they would ask the court to slenderize the damages in the interim, which could mean several more years of legal battles. They could also calm negotiate a settlement, both to avoid bankruptcies and to ward off the oncoming wave of lawsuits. While the jury has reached a culpable verdict, we’re waiting to see which kinds of actions the judge will take, which could include ordering varies to MLS rules and eliminating the requirement that sellers offer compensation to the buyer’s agent. That will likely suggest another proceeding, so it may be a matter of weeks, or even months, before the subsequent decision comes down.
Even without all-embracing rule changes, though, these lawsuits are certain to alter the real estate landscape, Brobeck told me. Numerous buyers and sellers today don’t realize that commissions are negotiable, he said; this trial could change that. And about, this is just the start.
Advertisement
Advertisement
“In a way,” Brobeck said, “the cat’s out of the bag now.”
James Rodriguez is a senior reporter on Insider’s Discourse duo.