What 2024-2025 federal court rulings impacted real estate commission structures?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal courts and related settlements in 2024–2025 forced a dramatic rethink of how buyer‑side commissions are presented and paid: a preliminary settlement with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) — tied to a $418 million package and practice changes — won court approval steps that changed MLS commission displays and seller obligations [1] [2]. Appeals and DOJ scrutiny followed: a D.C. Circuit ruling revived the Justice Department’s ability to probe NAR practices and multiple jury verdicts and settlements (including a $1.8 billion jury award reversed into settlements) spurred additional litigation and policy shifts across brokerages and MLS rules [1] [2] [3].
1. Landmark jury verdicts and settlements forced industry rule changes
An October 2023 jury awarded $1.8 billion to a class of Missouri‑area sellers for alleged anticompetitive “buyer‑broker” rules; that verdict and subsequent settlements prompted NAR and many brokerages to negotiate a March 2024 settlement that would pay roughly $418 million and alter longstanding commission practices if courts give final approval [1] [2]. Courts have already taken interim steps to approve parts of the package and to set fairness hearings and claim deadlines that could affect tens of millions of home sellers [1] [4].
2. D.C. Circuit and DOJ revived federal scrutiny of MLS and NAR rules
A D.C. Circuit ruling overturned a 2023 order that had blocked the Justice Department from obtaining NAR documents, restoring DOJ authority to investigate whether NAR’s rules inflate commissions — a decision the New York Times framed as a significant legal setback for NAR [1] [2]. Reuters reported the DOJ told a Boston court the proposed settlement still leaves sellers and listing brokers with too much power over buyer‑broker compensation, arguing the heart of the problem is whether sellers should be setting buyer‑broker pay at all [5].
3. Practical rule changes: offers of compensation and MLS posting
The settlements and court approvals led to concrete rule changes: listing agents on many NAR‑affiliated MLS systems can no longer post unilateral buyer‑broker compensation offers in the same way, meaning sellers are no longer automatically asked to pay the buyer’s agent commission — a shift described as the biggest practical change by multiple outlets [6] [7]. Banking and real‑estate press noted the new rules took effect mid‑2024 (augmented later by final approval steps), but also reported that immediate effects on average commission rates have been modest so far [6] [7].
4. Competing views: reformers, industry ties, and federal critics
Proponents present reform as increased transparency and negotiation, predicting potential price competition on the buyer side [7]. Industry defendants maintain the rules were disclosure mechanisms, not commission‑fixing, and have sought to overturn verdicts and reduce damages through appeals [3]. The DOJ and some consumer advocates counter that even modified rules preserve listing brokers’ role in setting buyer compensation—and thus may limit real change—raising objections in court filings [5].
5. Litigation aftermath: broad settlements, claims windows and appeals
The nationwide litigation spawned many related settlements with brokerages and vendor defendants; administration sites and notices set claim deadlines and fairness hearings [4]. Courts scheduled final approval hearings (for example, November hearings noted) and opened multi‑year claim periods that could cover transactions back to 2017 or 2019 depending on the docket; appeals and government objections left the possibility of further adjustment or rehearing open [1] [4].
6. What consumers should watch next
Watch three tracks: final court approval and distribution timelines tied to the $418 million and other settlements (which determine claimant payouts and practical rule enforcement) [1] [4]; DOJ or FTC investigations that could impose broader remedies if regulators press antitrust claims [2] [5]; and market behavior — whether buyer‑agent fees become individually negotiated, whether buyers can finance agent pay in mortgages, and whether average commission percentages fall markedly [6] [7]. Available sources do not mention specific nationwide percentage declines tied unambiguously to these rulings beyond early reporting that overall buyer‑agent commissions “have barely budged” as of early 2025 [6].
Limitations and context: reporting and court documents differ on effects and timelines; some outlets emphasize rule changes and settlements [1] [4], while the DOJ and others warn the remedies may be insufficient if listing brokers can still shape buyer compensation [5]. Courts remain central arbiters: some jury verdicts produced large awards that were then converted into settlements and appeals, and the D.C. Circuit’s restoration of DOJ investigatory power shows federal enforcement may yet reshape outcomes further [3] [2].