W
illiam Whittman, a broker with Proplocate Realty serving the Washington, D.C. area, filed an antitrust suit on Sept. 19 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. He accuses the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and state‑level Realtor groups—Virginia Realtors, Maryland Realtors, Northern Virginia Association of Realtors, and Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors—of operating a “metastasized cartel.” According to Whittman, these associations act as predatory gatekeepers, denying agents and brokers access to essential tools such as MLS listings, lockboxes, and forms unless they pay overlapping membership fees at local, state, and national levels. He claims the fee structure forces agents to leave his firm because he refuses to cover “duplicative, crippling fees.” Whittman alleges the scheme has drained Realtors of revenue, stifled his brokerage’s growth, and caused him “millions of dollars in damages,” including lost agents, failed transactions, and reduced firm value. He seeks $2 billion in punitive damages, $50 million in treble damages, legal costs, and injunctive relief to allow single‑membership access statewide. The suit joins similar challenges in California, Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana.
REX, a former low‑fee brokerage that sued Zillow and NAR four years ago over alleged concealment of non‑MLS listings, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 15 to review a March 2025 Ninth Circuit ruling. The appellate decision upheld that Zillow and NAR did not conspire against REX because NAR’s “no‑commingling rule,” now repealed, was optional. REX’s petition highlights a split among appellate courts on whether trade associations can escape antitrust liability by making rules optional. NAR and Zillow have been asked for comment.
In a separate case, Compass sued Zillow and secured a court order on Sept. 19 allowing the deposition of Zillow co‑founder Lloyd Frink for four hours on Sept. 24. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas noted Frink’s unique knowledge relevant to a preliminary injunction motion. Zillow opposed the deposition, claiming it was harassing, and requested redaction of certain case materials, citing competitive harm. Zillow has been contacted for comment.
