A federal court last week ruled there’s nothing anti-competitive about a REALTOR® association–owned MLS requiring association membership as a condition of MLS access. The decision was a big win for REALTORS®, says Ralph Holmen, deputy general counsel at the National Association of REALTORS®. “This decision upholds the notion that it’s reasonable to limit MLS participation to members of the association that own and operate the MLS,” Holmen says. “It’s a membership benefit, and it’s OK to require membership to enjoy that membership benefit.”
The case centered around David Findling, a southeast Michigan-based attorney who filed an antitrust lawsuit in 2016 against RealComp, a multiple listing service owned by eight local REALTOR® associations. Findling doesn’t have a broker’s license, but he sells property as a court-appointed receiver and trustee in estate and bankruptcy cases. He tried to become a member of one of the associations so he could access the MLS but was denied because he isn’t licensed to sell real estate.
In his complaint, Findling said the MLS was illegally maintaining a monopoly in the southeastern Michigan market for the listing and sale of properties, and the associations were illegally tying membership to MLS access. But the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, said Findling didn’t have standing to sue on antitrust grounds because the membership requirement isn’t a restraint on competition. “Plaintiff may not like having to secure a broker’s license and pay his dues, but categorizing plaintiff’s claims as an antitrust matter would trivialize the Sherman Antitrust Act,” the
court said in its decision.
The court also said there’s nothing wrong with the associations tying MLS access to association membership because it is reasonable, and Findling failed to supply evidence supporting his claim that the MLS possesses monopoly power. Findling has 30 days to either appeal or file an amended claim.
—Robert Freedman, REALTOR® Magazine
