By Jordan Grice | RISMedia
The lawsuit between PLS.com, an agent-only pocket listing service, and NAR serves as an example that some issues don’t just end when a judge dismisses a case.
In late April, a three-judge U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed a lower court’s dismissal of an antitrust lawsuit filed by PLS.com against the NAR’s Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP).
While the district court judge threw the case out because PLS didn’t “adequately allege” its antitrust injury, the Circuit court argued the contrary.
“At the outset, we hold that the district court erred when it held that PLS did not adequately allege antitrust injury because it did not allege harm to home buyers and sellers,” Circuit Judge Milan Smith Jr. wrote in a recent memorandum.
What we know
- PLS.com filed its lawsuit in May 2020, seeking monetary damages and “injunctive relief.”
- The lawsuit names NAR, Bright MLS, Midwest Real Estate Data, LLC. and California Regional Multiple Listing Service, Inc. as defendants; at issue is NAR’s Clear Cooperation Policy, which requires REALTORS® to add all of their off-MLS listings to their regional MLS within a business day.
- PLS was formed as the “Pocket Listing Service” that allowed real estate professionals privately share pocket listings with others in the industry outside of the NAR-affiliated MLSs.
- PLS alleges that NAR “eliminated the possibility of a more competitive future in the market” by establishing the CCP, harming consumers and their PLSs business.
- The case was dismissed by the U.S. District Court of California’s Western Division in February 2021.
- U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed the dismissal in April 2022.
- PLS is seeking monetary damages and for the court to permanently prohibit the Defendants from enforcing the CCP or any variant of that policy.
What’s at stake?
“The Clear Cooperation Policy was created to protect the best interest of consumers and promote equal opportunity for all,” said Rouda Smith. “Absent the CCP’s protections; a secondary market is possible where a small group of brokers could develop and limit consumers’ access to those listings.”
Read more (subscriber content)
Some stories may only appear as partial reprints because of publisher restrictions.
Related:
Lawsuits Threatening Agent Commissions: Moehrl v. NAR
Lawsuits Threatening Agent Commissions: Sitzer et al. v. NAR
Lawsuits Threatening Agent Commissions: REX v. Zillow & NAR, et al.