T
he U.S. Court of Appeals now faces the decision of whether to reverse the landmark settlement that has reshaped the real‑estate industry. As final briefs arrive, the judges will determine if years of litigation should be undone or if the Sitzer/Burnett accord remains intact.

    Four parties—Robert Friedman, Monty March, James Mullis, and Tanya Monestier—have already filed reply briefs with the Eighth Circuit, and additional submissions are expected later this month. An oral hearing before a three‑judge panel may follow, but the court could also rule solely on the written arguments. A decision is likely in early 2026.

    The settlement, approved in November 2024, allocates more than $1 billion to a class of home sellers involved in several related cases. Those appealing argue on several fronts: whether the seller class has standing to secure a district‑court approval, whether the payout is fair, and who should be included in the class.

    Tanya Monestier, a law professor at the University at Buffalo and a member of the seller class, has been particularly outspoken. In her reply brief she contended that the plaintiffs failed to address her concerns, instead urging the court to deem the settlement “fair, adequate, and reasonable” for 40 million sellers based largely on the plaintiffs’ assurances. She highlighted that the average class member will receive only $16, and that the plaintiffs claim this is the maximum amount defendants could pay without triggering bankruptcy. Monestier also challenged the plaintiffs’ standing, arguing they have not demonstrated a direct impact sufficient to pursue industry‑wide changes. She noted that the plaintiffs seek to introduce supplemental evidence into a case already containing over five million documents, questioning why standing evidence is not evident in such a vast record. The plaintiffs counter that the district court’s jurisdiction over the dispute gives it authority to approve the settlement without addressing Article III standing issues.

    Other objections focus on the composition of the settlement class. Friedman and March argue that the litigation against the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) constitutes a separate antitrust conspiracy and should not be bundled into the settlement. The judge in Sitzer/Burnett, however, included REBNY among the MLSs covered by the deal. Mullis, involved in the Batton case concerning homebuyers, contends that the settlement is unfair because it includes sellers who also purchased homes, thereby excluding some Batton buyers who sold a property.

    These arguments underscore the tension between the plaintiffs’ goal of a comprehensive industry settlement and the objectors’ concerns about fairness, standing, and class composition. The court’s forthcoming ruling will decide whether the settlement’s sweeping impact remains or whether the case will be reopened for further scrutiny.