Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

JULIE MARTIN, MARK ADAMS, 

AND ADELAIDA MATTA,

individually and on behalf of all other 

persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF 

REALTORS, INC., AUSTIN BOARD 

OF REALTORS, SAN ANTONIO 

BOARD OF REALTORS, INC., 

METROTEX ASSOCIATION OF 

REALTORS, INC., HOUSTON 

ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, 

GREATER EL PASO ASSOCIATION 

OF REALTORS, GREATER FORT 

WORTH ASSOCIATION OF 

REALTORS, INC., FORT HOOD 

AREA ASSOCIATION OF 

REALTORS, INC., FOUR RIVERS 

ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, 

INC., TEMPLE-BELTON BOARD OF 

REALTORS, INC., VICTORIA AREA 

ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, 

INC., WILLIAMSON COUNTY 

ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, 

INC., AUSTIN/CENTRAL TEXAS 

REALTY INFORMATION SERVICE, 

CENTRAL TEXAS MULTIPLE 

LISTING SERVICE, INC., HOUSTON 

REALTORS INFORMATION 

SERVICE, INC., NORTH TEXAS 

REAL ESTATE INFORMATION 

SYSTEMS, INC., ABA 

MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., PENFED 

REALTY, LLC, EBBY HALLIDAY 

REAL ESTATE, LLC, THE DAVE 

PERRY-MILLER COMPANY, KELLER 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 1
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 2 

WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., HEYL 

GROUP HOLDINGS LLC, THE 

LOKEN GROUP, INC., HEXAGON 

GROUP, LLC, DMTX, LLC, KELLER 

WILLIS SAN ANTONIO, INC., SAN 

ANTONIO LEGACY GROUP, LLC, 

DSJMM, LLC, FATHOM REALTY, 

LLC, SIDE, INC., CITIQUEST 

PROPERTIES, INC., 

HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, 

INC., JP PICCININI REAL ESTATE 

SERVICES, LLC, TEAM BURNS, LLC, 

ABRE CAPITAL LLC, REALTY 

AUSTIN, LLC, ATX WIR LLC, THE 

MICHAEL GROUP, LLC, SQUARE 

MB, LLC, MARK ANTHONY DIMAS, 

GREENWOOD KING PROPERTIES 

II, INC., TURNER MANGUM LLC, 

MORELAND PROPERTIES, INC.,

REAL AGENT LLC, RFT 

ENTERPRISES, INC., ATC METRO 

PROPERTIES, INC., AND MJHM 

LLC,

Defendants.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Comes Now Julie Martin, Mark Adams, and Adelaida Matta, Plaintiffs herein, and 

bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Class consisting of all

persons who listed properties on a Multiple Listing Service in Texas (“the MLS”) using a 

listing agent or broker affiliated with one of the Defendants named herein and paid a 

buyer broker commission from November 13, 2019, until the present (“the Class Period”).

In support thereof, Plaintiffs respectfully allege as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSPIRATORIAL SCHEME

1. In the realm of Texas real estate lies a concealed conspiracy that has 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 2 of 40 PageID #: 2
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 3 

adversely impacted countless home buyers and sellers. Plaintiffs, who have listed their 

homes on Multiple Listing Services (MLS) in Texas, stand as the voice of those who have 

borne the brunt of the Defendants' unlawful collaboration and anticompetitive practices. 

This conspiracy centers around the enforcement of an anticompetitive restraint that 

compels home sellers to provide an inflated fee to the broker representing the buyer of 

their properties, thus violating federal antitrust regulations. Notably, the United States 

Department of Justice's Antitrust Division is currently conducting a thorough 

investigation into the residential real estate brokerage sector, with a specific focus on 

broker compensation and related practices.

2. The creator of the conspiracy is the National Association of Realtors

(“NAR”), a trade association for real estate brokers with over 1.5 million individual 

members. NAR conspired with its largest affiliated associations in Texas and some of the 

largest real estate brokerages that worked in Texas during the Class Period.

A. NAR’s Regulatory Dominion

3. At the core of this alleged conspiracy lies NAR, an organization with 

considerable influence in shaping the real estate landscape. 

4. NAR wields its regulatory authority to impose a rule known as the 

"Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule." This rule dictates that every property seller, 

when listing their home on an MLS affiliated with a local NAR association, must make a 

sweeping, non-negotiable offer of compensation to buyer brokers. The Defendants, acting 

in concert with NAR, pressurize or incentivize their franchisees, brokers, and agents to 

become NAR members and adhere to its regulatory regime. Through this concerted 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 3 of 40 PageID #: 3
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 4

effort, they ensure the implementation and enforcement of the Mandatory Offer of 

Compensation Rule.

B. MLS Control and Competition Suppression

5. MLSs acting as reservoirs of property listings available for sale in defined 

geographic regions, play a pivotal role in the real estate ecosystem. Most homes in the 

United States are traded through MLS platforms, where brokers are often obligated to 

include all properties. These MLSs are primarily governed by local NAR associations, 

and access is granted contingent upon broker compliance with NAR's mandatory 

regulations outlined in the Handbook on Multiple Listing Policy. This handbook 

explicitly incorporates the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule. 

6. The Defendants and NAR, along with their alleged collaborators, wield 

significant control over local real estate markets due to their influence in MLSs.

C. Stifling Competitive Markets

7. In many MLSs, NAR compels broker compliance with rules that curtail 

competition. Furthermore, each Defendant mandates or encourages their franchisees, 

brokerages, and individual realtors to join NAR and implement its anticompetitive 

regulations, including the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule, as a prerequisite for 

enjoying the benefits of Defendants' branding, brokerage support, and other resources. 

8. As prominent brokers in Texas, their involvement in the alleged conspiracy, 

manifested through the implementation and enforcement of its rules and policies, is 

indispensable to the conspiracy's prosperity. 

9. These anticompetitive measures favor the Defendants by enabling brokers 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 4 of 40 PageID #: 4
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 5

to impose charges on home sellers beyond competitive thresholds and thwarting 

competition from innovative or lower-cost alternatives.

D. Home Seller Burden

10. The alleged conspiracy compels home sellers to bear a cost that, in a 

competitive market and in the absence of the Defendants' anticompetitive restraint, 

would typically be borne by the homebuyer. 

11. Further, this has led to an industry-recognized practice called “steering,” 

where homeowners are pressured into accepting inflated or stabilized rates out of fear 

that buyer brokers will not show their home to prospective buyers.

E. Competitive Imbalance

12. In the absence of NAR's Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule, the 

expense of buyer broker commissions would be incurred by the clients (homebuyers). 

This would lead to competition among buyer brokers to offer lower commission rates. 

13. Consequently, the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule stifles price 

competition among buyer brokers because the actual party retaining the buyer broker—

the homebuyer—doesn't negotiate or pay the commission for their broker.

F. Anticompetitive Effects

14. Adding to the anticompetitive implications of the Mandatory Offer of 

Compensation Rule, NAR’s rules also forbid buyer brokers from making home purchase 

offers that hinge on reducing the buyer broker’s commission. 

15. The conspiracy has led to various illogical, harmful, and anticompetitive 

effects, including: (a) requiring sellers to pay overcharges for services provided by buyer 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 5 of 40 PageID #: 5
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 6

brokers to the buyer; (b) maintaining, fixing, and stabilizing buyer broker compensation 

at levels that would not exist in a competitive market; and (c) promoting steering and 

actions that hinder innovation and entry by new, lower-cost real estate brokerage service 

providers.

16. In competitive overseas markets, when homebuyers opt to use a broker, 

they personally cover the cost, which is less than half of what American buyer brokers 

receive. 

17. As a result, Defendants' conspiracy has inflated and stabilized buyer broker 

commissions, resulting in higher total commissions paid by home sellers like Plaintiffs 

and Class members. Plaintiffs and Class members have each incurred, on average, 

thousands of dollars in overcharges and damages due to Defendants' alleged conspiracy.

G. Defendants' Alleged Roles

18. Defendants leverage their control over MLSs, their agreements with local 

franchisees and agents, their employee policies, and their active roles within NAR and 

local realtor associations to compel local residential real estate brokers to comply with 

NAR's regulations, including the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule. 

19. Defendants also play a part in implementing the conspiracy by reviewing 

NAR's Rules and consenting to them at annual meetings, and NAR perpetuates the 

conspiracy by periodically reissuing its Rules, which include the Mandatory Offer of 

Compensation Rule. Additionally, Defendants are involved in the conspiracy by serving 

on boards and committees that oversee compliance with NAR Rules.

20. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, bring this lawsuit against 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 6 of 40 PageID #: 6
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 7 

Defendants for alleged violations of federal antitrust laws, seeking treble damages, 

injunctive relief, and the costs of this lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2), 

because the Class defined herein contains more than 100 persons, the aggregate amount in

controversy exceeds $5,000,000, and at least one member of the Class is a citizen of a State

different from Defendants. Subject matter jurisdiction overthis action also exists under 15 

U.S.C. § 4 and under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337. 

22. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. They have: (1) 

transacted substantial business in the United States, including in this District; (2)

transacted business with members of the Class throughout the United States, including in 

this District; (3) had substantial contacts with the United States, including in this District; 

and (4) committed substantial acts in furtherance of their unlawful scheme in the United 

States, including in this District.

23. Each Defendant has received revenue attributable to business transacted in 

Texas and in this District from the brokerage operations of their respective subsidiaries, 

franchisees, affiliates, and/ortransaction counterparts that transact business in Texas and

in this District.

24. Venue is proper in this District under 15 U.S.C. § 22 and under 28 U.S.C. 

§1391(b), (c), and (d). Each Defendant transacted business, was found, had agents and/or 

resided in this District; a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims 

arose in this District; and a substantial portion of the affected interstate trade and 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 7 of 40 PageID #: 7
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 8 

commerce described herein has been carried out in this District.

25. The Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule and other anticompetitive 

rules promulgated by NAR have been extended and enforced by Defendants and their 

co-conspirators in interstate commerce, including this District. These rules govern local 

NAR associations, local brokers, and local sales agents across the entire nation. 

Defendants' conduct, as alleged, has led to the inflation of buyer broker commissions 

nationwide, causing harm to home sellers in numerous regions. Through Defendants, 

other NAR members, and additional co-conspirators, NAR conducts business in 

interstate commerce, engaging in activities that substantially impact interstate trade 

within the United States.

III.PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs. 

26. Plaintiff Julie Martin (“Martin”) is an individual and citizen of the state of 

New Mexico. On April 28, 2023, Martin sold real property commonly described as 267 

Chrisholm Trail, Bastrop, TX 78602. Martin used Moreland Properties, Inc. as her listing 

broker. The buyers’ broker, whom Martin paid a 3% commission to, was Real Agent, LLC.

27. Plaintiff Mark Adams (“Adams”) is an individual and citizen of Texas. 

Plaintiff Adelaida Matta (“Matta”) is an individual and citizen of Texas. In the prior four 

(4) years, plaintiffs have sold a number of properties:

a. On June 17, 2020, Adams and Matta sold real property commonly 

described as 15144 Dory Dr., Corpus Christi, TX 78418. They used ATC 

Metro Properties Inc. as their listing broker. The buyers’ broker, whom 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 8 of 40 PageID #: 8
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 9

Adams and Matta paid a 3% commission to, was South Coastal Realty, 

LLC d/b/a Keller Williams Coastal Bend.

b. On November 10, 2020, Adams and Matta sold real property commonly 

described as 18753 Kelly Meadows Ln, New Caney, TX 77357. They used 

DSJMM, LLC d/b/a Keller Williams Realty Professionals as their listing 

broker. The buyers’ broker, whom Adams and Matta paid a 3% 

commission to, was Texas Diamond Realty.

c. On November 22, 2021, Adams and Matta sold real property commonly 

described as 13946 Jibstay St., Corpus Christi, TX 78418. They used ATC 

Metro Properties Inc. as their listing broker. The buyers’ broker, whom 

Adams and Matta paid a 3% commission to, was Coastline Properties.

d. On April 7, 2022, Adams and Matta sold real property commonly 

described as 110 Del Monte Dr., Cibolo, TX 78108. They used MJHM, 

LLC d/b/a Texas Edge Realty and their listing broker. The buyers’

broker, whom Adams and Matta paid a 3% commission to, was Premier 

Realty Group.

e. On June 7, 2023, Adams and Matta sold real property commonly 

described as 4814 Heathers Cross, Saint Hedwig, TX 78152. They used 

MJHM, LLC d/b/a Texas Edge Realty as their listing broker. The 

buyers’ broker, whom Adams and Matta paid a 3% commission to, was 

Vortex Realty LLC.

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 9 of 40 PageID #: 9
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 10 

B. Defendants. 

28. Defendant Texas Association of Realtors, Inc. (“TAR”) is a non-profit 

corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. TAR was founded in 1920 and 

is composed of over 153,000 realtors and has over 160,000 total members.1 Over 85% of 

licensed real estate agents in Texas are members of TAR.2 TAR may be served by serving 

its registered agent, Travis Kessler, at 11115 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 200, Austin, TX 

78701, or wherever he may be found. 

29. Defendant Austin Board of Realtors (“ABOR”) is a non-profit corporation 

organized under the laws of the state of Texas. ABOR was established in 1926 and has 

over 14,000 members.3 Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, Emily 

Chenevert, at 4800 Spicewood Springs Rd., Austin, TX 78759, or wherever she may be 

found.

30. Defendant San Antonio Board of Realtors, Inc. (“SABOR”) is a non-profit 

corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by 

serving its registered agent, Gilbert S. Gonzales, at 9110 IH 10 West, San Antonio, TX 

78230, or wherever he may be found. 

31. Defendant MetroTex Association of Realtors, Inc. (“MetroTex”) is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. MetroTex was 

established in 1917 and has over 26,000 members.4 Defendant may be served by serving 

1 See https://www.texasrealestate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023_TR_Fact_Sheet.pdf. 

2 See id.

3 See www.aceableagent.com/blog/what-is-austin-board-of-realtors. 

4 See https://www.mymetrotex.com/are-you-ready-to-be-a-metrotex-leader/. 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 10 of 40 PageID #: 10
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 11 

its registered agent, Janet L. Kane, at 1701 Kinwest Parkway, Irving, TX 75063, or 

wherever she may be found.

32. Defendant Houston Association of Realtors, Inc. (“HAR”) is a non-profit 

corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. HAR is the largest individual 

dues-paying membership trade association in Houston, and the second largest local 

association/board of realtors in the United States.5 Defendant may be served by serving 

its registered agent, Grant P. Harpold, at 2229 San Felipe, Suite 1000, Houston, TX 77019, 

or wherever he may be found.

33. Defendant Greater El Paso Association of Realtors (“GEPAR”) is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. GEPAR is the largest 

professional trade association in El Paso with over 3,000 members. Defendant may be 

served by serving its registered agent, Richard Anthony Delgado, at 6400 Gateway Blvd 

E, El Paso, TX 79905, or wherever he may be found. 

34. Defendant Greater Fort Worth Association of Realtors, Inc. (“GFWAR”) is 

a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant can 

be served by serving its registered agent, Mary R. Chilton, at 2650 Parkview Dr., Fort 

Worth, TX 76102, or wherever she may be found. 

35. Defendant Fort Hood Area Association of Realtors, Inc. (“FHAAR”) is a 

non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant can be 

served by serving its registered agent, Michael DeHart, at 306 W. Mary Jane Dr., Killeen, 

5 See https://cms.har.com/association_facts/. 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 11 of 40 PageID #: 11
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 12 

TX 76541, or wherever he may be found. 

36. Defendant Four Rivers Association of Realtors, Inc. (“FRAR”) is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant can be 

served by serving its registered agent, Amy DuBose, at 936 Gruene Rd, New Braunfels, 

TX 78130, or wherever she may be found. 

37. Defendant Temple-Belton Board of Realtors, Inc. (“TBBR”) is a non-profit 

corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant can be served by 

serving its registered agent, Wendy R. Nichols, at 2703 Exchange Place, Temple, TX 76504, 

or wherever she may be found.

38. Defendant Victoria Area Association of Realtors, Inc. (“VAAR”) is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant can be 

served by serving its registered agent, Tiena Marie Bock, at 2906 E. Airline, Victoria, TX 

77901, or wherever she may be found. 

39. Defendant Williamson County Association of Realtors, Inc. (“WCAR”) is a 

non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant can be 

served by serving its registered agent, Majorie L. Phillips, at 123 E. Old Settler’s Blvd, 

Round Rock, TX 78664, or wherever she may be found. 

40. Defendant Austin/Central Texas Realty Information Service (“ACTRIS”) is 

a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. ACTRIS is the 

MLS serving eighteen (18) central Texas counties including Travis County and is 

overseen by ABOR. Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, Emily 

Chenevert, at 4800 Spicewood Springs Rd., Austin, TX 78759, or wherever she may be 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 12 of 40 PageID #: 12
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 13 

heard.

41. Defendant Central Texas Multiple Listing Service, Inc. (“CTXMLS”) is a 

non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. CTXMLS is the 

MLS that covers several central Texas counties. It has over 7,700 members and is jointly 

administered by the Fort Hood Area Association of Realtors, the Four Rivers Association 

of Realtors, the Williamson County Association of Realtors, the Temple-Belton 

Association of Realtors, and the Victoria Area Association of Realtors. Defendant may be 

served by serving its registered agent, Lea Phelps, at 936 Gruene Rd., New Braunfels, TX 

78130, or wherever she may be found. 

42. Defendant Houston Realtors Information Service, Inc., (“HRIS”) is a 

corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. HRIS is the MSL covering 

Harris County and administered by HAR. Defendant may be served by serving its 

registered agent, Grant P Harpold, at 2229 San Felipe, Suite 1000, Houston, TX 77019, or 

wherever he may be found.

43. Defendant North Texas Real Estate Information Systems, Inc. (“NTREIS”) 

is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. NTREIS is the MLS 

covering counties in North Texas, including Dallas and Tarrant counties. It has 

approximately 40,000 subscribers and fourteen (14) shareholder realtor associations. 

Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, Jerome L. Prager, at 14911 

Quorum Drive, Ste 320, Dallas, Texas 75254, or wherever he may be found. 

44. Defendant ABA Management, L.L.C. (“ABA”) is a limited liability 

company organized under the laws of the state of Texas. ABA does business as Allie Beth 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 13 of 40 PageID #: 13
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 14 

Allman & Associates. ABA is considered one of North Texas’ top real estate firms, with 

over 425 agents.6 Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, CT 

Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201. 

45. Defendant PenFed Realty, LLC (‘PenFed”) is a limited liability company 

organized under the laws of the state of Virgina, with its principal place of business in 

Alexandria, Virgina. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of PendFed Credit Union and it is 

the largest independently owned brokerage in the Berkshire Hathaway HomesServices 

network, placing it in the top 1% of all real estate brokerages in the country. It has almost 

70 offices, over 2000 professionals, and provides services in Texas.7 Defendant may be 

served by serving its registered agent, Corporation Service Company dba CSC – Lawyers 

Incorporating Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701. 

46. Defendant Ebby Halliday Real Estate, LLC (“Ebby”), is a limited liability 

company organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Ebby Halliday Real Estate, LLC 

is the largest private residential real estate company in Texas by sales volume and has 

been in operation since 1945.8 Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, 

CT Corporation System, at 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201. 

47. Defendant The Dave Perry-Miller Company (“DPMC”), is a corporation 

organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its 

registered agent, Davidson A. Perry-Miller, at 5956 Sherry Lane, Ste 510, Dallas, TX 75225.

6 See https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/allie-beth-allman-queen-of-highland-park-homes/.

7 See https://www.penfedrealty.com/real-estate-about-us. 8 https://www.housingwire.com/articles/43579-warren-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-affiliate-buysebby-halliday/

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 14 of 40 PageID #: 14
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 15 

48. Defendant Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (“Keller Williams”) is a corporation 

organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Keller Williams is a prominent real estate 

franchise and brokerage firm. It was founded in Austin, Texas in 1983.9 By 2015, Keller 

Williams became the largest real estate franchise in the world by agent count.10 Keller 

Williams Realty is headquartered in Austin, Texas.11 Defendant may be served by serving 

its registered agent, Cogency Global, Inc., at 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4360, Dallas, TX 75201.

49. Defendant Heyl Group Holdings LLC is a limited liability company 

organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its 

registered agent, Tim M. Heyl, at 1801 S Mopac Expy., Ste 100, Austin, TX 78746. 

50. Defendant The Loken Group, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws 

of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, Lance 

Loken, at 8726 Ridgebury Circle, Houston, TX 77095, or wherever he may be found. 

51. Defendant Hexagon Group, LLC is a limited liability company organized 

under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its registered 

agent, William E. Webb, at 3401 Lantz Circle, Plano, TX 75025, or wherever he may be 

found.

52. Defendant DMTX, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the 

laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, Dave 

Murray, at 1904 Georgia Landing Cove, Austin, TX 78746, or wherever he may be found.

9 https://thrive.kw.com/our-story/

10 https://thrive.kw.com/our-story/

11 https://headquarters.kw.com/contact-us/

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 15 of 40 PageID #: 15
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 16 

53. Defendant Keller Willis San Antonio, Inc. is a corporation organized under 

the laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas. 

Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, Amy Clifton, at 10999 I-10 W, 

Suite 175, San Antonio, TX 78230, or wherever she may be found. 

54. Defendant San Antonio Legacy Group, LLC is a limited liability company 

organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its 

registered agent, Jerri Smallwood, at 1102 E. Sonterra Blvd., Ste. 106, San Antonio, TX 

78258, or wherever she may be found.

55. Defendant DSJMM, LLC (d/b/a Keller Williams Realty Professionals) is a 

limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may 

be served serving its registered agent, Jason M. Medley, at 909 Fannin St., Suite 2300, 

Houston, TX 77010, or wherever he may be found. 

56. Defendant Fathom Realty, LLC (“Fathom”) is a limited liability company 

organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its 

registered agent, Joshua Harley, at 2150 S. Central Expressway, Ste 200, McKinney, TX 

75070, or wherever he may be found. 

57. Defendant Grace Realty Group LLC is a limited liability company formed 

under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its registered 

agent, Steven Richards, at 5113 Trinity Landing Dr. W. Fort Worth, TX 76132, or wherever 

he may be found.

58. Defendant Side, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the state 

of Delaware with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Defendant 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 16 of 40 PageID #: 16
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 17 

may be served by serving its registered agent, InCorp Services, Inc., at 815 Brazos St., 

Suite 500, Austin, TX 78701. 

59. Defendant Citiquest Properties, Inc. is a corporation organized under the 

laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. 

Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, Steven P. Burbidge, at 6807 

Wynwood LN., Houston, TX 77008, or wherever he may be found. 

60. Defendant HomeServices of America, Inc. is a corporation organized under 

the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business in Edina, Minnesota. 

Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, C T Corporation System, at 1999 

Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201. 

61. Defendant JP Piccinini Real Estate Services, LLC (“JPP”) is a limited liability 

company organized under the laws of the state of Texas. JPP is a Texas real estate firm 

that was founded by Giuseppe ‘JP’ Piccinini in 2011. It is a full-service real estate brand 

and franchise platform. The company has approximately 4,000 agents operating in 60 

offices across 25 states and closes $8 Billion annually in sales volumes.12 It is 

headquartered in Plano, Texas.13 It is considered one of America’s fastest growing 100% 

commission brokerages and top 2023 franchises.14 Defendant may be served by serving 

its registered agent, Cogency Global Inc., at 1601 Elm St., Suite 4360, Dallas, TX 75201. 

62. Defendant Team Burns, LLC d/b/a Monument Realty (“Burns”) is a 

12 See https://www.jpar.com/about-jpar/.

13 See https://www.jpar.com/about-jpar/

14 See https://www.jpar.com/about-jpar/. 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 17 of 40 PageID #: 17
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 18 

limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Burns is a 

licensed real estate service provider in Frisco, Texas.15 It has 1,076 active agents. It has 

closed approximately 4,167 transactions and closed about $2.2 Billing in sales.16

Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, United States Corporation 

Agents, Inc., at 9900 Spectrum Drive, Austin, TX 78717. 

63. Defendant ABRE Capital LLC d/b/a Real Broker, LLC (“ABRE”) is a 

limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Texas. ABRE has over 

12,000 agents and has sold 18.7 billion in home sales in 12 months as of June 30, 2023. 

Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, Legal Inc Corporate Services 

Inc., at 10601 Clarence Dr., Ste. 250, Frisco, TX 75033. 

64. Defendant Realty Austin, LLC is a limited liability company organized 

under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its registered 

agent, Maggie Simoneaux-Cuaso, at 3355 Bee Caves Road, #505, Austin, TX 78746, or 

wherever she may be found.

65. Defendant ATX WIR LLC is a limited liability company organized under 

the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, 

Christopher Watters, at 6850 Austin Center Blvd., #320, Austin, TX 78731, or wherever 

he may be found.

66. Defendant The Michael Group LLC is a limited liability company organized 

under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its registered 

15 See https://licensee.io/real-estate/9006556-team-burns-llc-tx/. 16 See https://www.monumentrealtytx.com/. 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 18 of 40 PageID #: 18
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 19 

agent, Corporation Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701. 

67. Defendant Square MB, LLC is a limited liability company organized under 

the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, 

Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, at 

211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701. 

68. Defendant Mark Anthony Dimas is an individual who is a citizen of Texas. 

Defendant may be served at his usual place of business located at 16700 Huffmeister Rd, 

Cypress, TX 77429, or wherever he may be found. 

69. Defendant Greenwood King Properties II, Inc. is a corporation organized 

under the laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. 

Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, Shannon J. Skurner, at 3201 

Kirby, Houston, TX 77098, or wherever she may be found. 

70. Defendant Turner Mangum LLC is a limited liability company organized 

under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its registered 

agent, Jared S. Turner, at 2310 Peters Rd., Crosby, TX 77532, or wherever he may be found.

71. Defendant Moreland Properties, Inc. (“Moreland”) is a corporation 

organized under the laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of business in 

Austin, Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, Emily Moreland, 

at 3825 Lake Austin Blvd., #501, Austin, TX 78703, or wherever she may be found. 

72. Defendant Real Agent LLC (“RA”) is a limited liability company organized 

under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its registered 

agent, Robert Baylor, at 13785 Research Blvd., Suite 125, Austin, TX 78750, or wherever 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 19 of 40 PageID #: 19
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 20 

he may be found.

73. Defendant RFT Enterprises, Inc. (“RFT”) is a corporation organized under 

the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, 

Roxann F Taylor, at 640 N. Carroll Ave, Ste. 100, Southlake, TX 76092, or wherever she 

may be found.

74. Defendant ATC Metro Properties, Inc. is a corporation organized under the 

laws of the state of Texas with a principal place of business in Corpus Christi, TX. 

Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent, Timothy Bryant Teas, at 14725 

S. Padre Island Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78418, or wherever he may be found. 

75. Defendant MJHM LLC (d/b/a Texas Edge Realty) is a limited liability 

company organized under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant may be served by 

serving its registered agent, Hurlbert Matthew, at 9002 Wurzbach Rd, San Antonio, TX 

78240, or wherever he may be found. 

C. Co-Conspirators. 

76. Defendants’ co-conspirators not named as defendants include two of the 

four17 largest real estate brokers in the country: Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (f/k/a Realogy 

Holdings Corp.) and RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. along with the National Association of 

Realtors (“NAR”).

77. Franchisees and brokers of Defendants also participated as co-conspirators 

in the violations alleged herein and performed acts and made statements in furtherance 

17 Keller Williams is one of the four largest real estate brokers in the country, but it is a named defendant 

herein.

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 20 of 40 PageID #: 20
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 21 

thereof. Specifically, each complied with and implemented the Buyer-Agent Commission 

Rule in the geographic areas where the NAR MLSs operate. In addition, other brokers in 

these areas have participated as co-conspirators in the violations alleged herein and 

performed acts and made statements in furtherance thereof. These other brokers 

complied with and implemented the Buyer-Agent Commission Rule in Texas.

78. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts of their co-conspirators, 

whether named or not named as Defendants herein. 

IV.FACTS

A. Real Estate Market in Texas. 

79. The state of Texas governs the real estate industry through its licensing 

regulations. In 2022, approximately 86% of home sellers and buyers in the United States 

utilized the services of real estate brokers.18 These regulations classify real estate 

professionals into two primary categories: (1) real estate brokers, often referred to as 

"brokerage firms," and (2) individual real estate licensees or agents. These brokers license 

and assume legal responsibility for the actions of individual real estate realtors or agents

80. According to Texas law, only licensed brokers are authorized to receive 

compensation for representing home buyers or sellers in real estate transactions. 

Consequently, all real estate brokerage contracts must be established with brokers, not 

agents, and payments to individual agents or realtors are routed through brokers. Many 

brokers, along with their respective agents, often operate in dual roles, acting as seller 

18 https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics/quick-real-estate-statistics

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 21 of 40 PageID #: 21
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 22

brokers for some property sales and as buyer brokers for others.

81. In standard residential real estate transactions, brokers and agents receive 

compensation in the form of commissions, calculated as a percentage of the property's 

sale price, with the payment being realized upon the sale's completion.

82. Compensation for seller brokers is stipulated in a listing agreement, a 

contract signed between the seller and the seller broker. This agreement outlines the 

listing terms and often grants the seller broker exclusive marketing rights to the property. 

The listing agreement also specifies the total commission to be paid by the seller.

83. When a buyer engages a broker's services, they typically enter into a 

contract with that broker. If a buyer retains a broker, the seller remits the buyer broker's 

compensation. Historically, NAR's Code of Ethics espoused a conduct standard that 

falsely suggested to buyers that their agent's services are provided at no cost. 

84. The net effect of these agreements and the Mandatory Offer of 

Compensation Rule is that buyer brokers, who are tasked with representing the buyers' 

interests against the sellers, receive their compensation from the overall commission paid 

by the seller, not from the buyers they represent. This has led to significant confusion 

regarding the functioning of commissions within the real estate market such that many 

sellers do not understand how and why they are paying the buyer’s agent a 3% 

commission.

85. Without the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule and in a competitive 

market context (where sellers have no incentive to compensate a buyer broker who works 

against their interests), buyers would directly pay their brokers. Sellers, in turn, would 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 22 of 40 PageID #: 22
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 23

exclusively pay a commission to their seller broker. Consequently, the seller's total broker 

commission would amount to approximately half or less of the customary commission 

paid to remunerate both their seller broker and the buyer's broker, who is advocating for 

the buyer's interests.

B. Role of Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) and the Mandatory Offer of 

Compensation Rule

86. MLSs serve as central repositories for available properties within specific 

geographic areas, offering access to real estate brokers and their affiliated realtors or 

agents who adhere to MLS regulations. Many MLSs are owned and managed by local 

realtor associations, which are members of NAR.

87. NAR regulations mandate that seller brokers must list their clients' 

properties on an MLS. Notably, the failure to list a client's property on an MLS results in 

diminished visibility for that property, as it is less likely to be presented to potential 

buyers by buyer brokers.

88. The Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule imposes an obligation on seller 

brokers, acting on behalf of their clients, to make a comprehensive, non-negotiable offer 

of compensation to buyer brokers whenever they list a property on an MLS affiliated with 

a local NAR association. In the event that a buyer, who is represented by a broker, 

ultimately purchases the property, the buyer broker is entitled to the offered 

compensation.

C. Anticompetitive NAR Rules

89. NAR introduced the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule in 1996, 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 23 of 40 PageID #: 23
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 24

incorporating it into the Handbook on Multiple Listing Policy. This rule has remained in 

effect since its inception.

90. Before the adoption of the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule in 1996, 

upon information and belief, NAR played a central role in structuring, implementing, 

and enforcing a similar and equally flawed market structure. Under this system of subagency, brokers representing buyers were legally obligated to act in the interest of sellers, 

even when primarily working with buyers. As a result, the practice of sellers 

compensating both their selling broker and the buyer's broker persisted.

91. The inefficiency and confusion inherent in this sub-agency system 

ultimately led to its collapse when widely exposed in the media.

92. Following the collapse of the sub-agency system, NAR and its coconspirators devised and enforced an anticompetitive scheme aimed at perpetuating 

supra-competitive commissions, impeding innovation, and hindering lower-priced 

competition. This was accomplished through the Mandatory Offer of Compensation 

Rule, officially adopted in November 1996.

93. NAR’s Board of Directors and associated committees periodically evaluate 

and revise the policies in the Handbook. The Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule has 

been retained despite criticism from economists and industry experts, who argue that the 

rule contributes to anticompetitive market conditions and inflated commission rates. 

94. Defendants have actively participated in this anticompetitive scheme by 

agreeing to follow, promote, and implement the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule. 

These actions have established an environment that perpetuates high commissions and 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 24 of 40 PageID #: 24
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 25

restricts market competition. Indeed, in the Inman Survey (2014), 56% of agents reported 

that their brokerages require a minimum total commission level to list homes for sellers 

and brokerages specify a minimum commission rate that must be offered to buyer agents 

when the brokerages represents the seller.

95. Furthermore, NAR has invited Defendants and other co-conspirators to join 

an agreement, whereby participation in the MLS system is contingent upon compliance 

with anticompetitive restraints set forth in the Handbook. Regardless of their initial 

involvement in drafting or adopting the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule, 

Defendants have since joined the conspiracy and committed to upholding and enforcing 

the rule.

96. The Handbook explicitly states the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule, 

requiring participants to make unilateral compensation offers when filing properties with 

an MLS. The Handbook also stipulates that MLSs should not publish listings that do not 

include compensation offers or invitations for participants to discuss cooperative 

relationships.

97. The Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule transfers a cost that would 

ordinarily be paid by the buyer, in a competitive market, to the seller. Home sellers 

effectively become obligated to hire a buyer broker if they want to list their property on 

an MLS. The system violates antitrust laws by keeping buying agents compensated 

despite offering limited services. Indeed, in the age of the internet where a buyer is able 

to search and locate their next house on their computer or smartphone without the 

assistance of a real estate agent—and they often do just that—a competitive market 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 25 of 40 PageID #: 25
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 26

should have forced lower buyer broker commissions as a reflection of the decreasing need 

for their services.

98. In their efforts to steer clients towards homes offering higher commissions, 

buyer brokers utilize the offered compensation amounts. This steering practice is 

confirmed by economic literature and has clear anticompetitive effects, making it difficult 

for brokers to compete based solely on the services they provide to clients.

99. Defendants and other co-conspirators also employ technology to facilitate 

steering based on MLS commission information. 

D. Defendants’ Participation in the Conspiracy

100. Defendants, in collaboration with NAR, have actively supported, 

implemented, and enforced the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule. They have 

required their franchisees, brokers, agents, and employees to comply with NAR rules, 

including the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule.

101. Therefore, Defendants and their franchisees, along with their agents, have 

furthered the conspiracy by agreeing to implement, follow, and enforce NAR's rules, 

including the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule.

E. Effects of the Conspiracy

102. The conspiracy led by Defendants and NAR have had several 

anticompetitive effects in Texas, including:

• Inflated Costs and Compelled High Commissions for Home Sellers: The 

Defendants' conspiracy in Texas has resulted in inflated costs for home sellers. 

They are compelled to pay commissions to buyer brokers who, paradoxically, 

represent their adversaries in property negotiations. This practice also compels 

home sellers to set high buyer broker commissions, which in turn diminishes their 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 26 of 40 PageID #: 26
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 27

control over expenses and market competitiveness.

• Payment of Inflated Commissions and Price Competition Restraint: The 

conspiracy perpetuates the payment of inflated buyer broker commissions and 

total commissions by home sellers, reducing the financial benefit sellers derive 

from property transactions. This anticompetitive conduct significantly restrains 

price competition among brokers in Texas. Both buyers seeking to retain broker 

services and sellers seeking to list their properties find their choices constrained 

by this manipulative environment.

• Separation of Buyer Broker Retention and Commission Setting: The conspiracy has 

effectively separated the retention of buyer brokers from the setting of broker 

commissions. In this distorted system, the home buyer now directly retains the 

services of a buyer broker, while the seller's agent determines the compensation 

for the buyer broker, exacerbating inefficiencies within the market.

103. There are no pro-competitive effects stemming from the conspiracy, which 

is unequivocally anticompetitive and detrimental to the competitive landscape. And any 

alleged pro-competitive benefits within the MLS system do not justify the Mandatory 

Offer of Compensation Rule, as they are substantially outweighed by its anticompetitive 

effects.

104. Comprehensive economic evidence supports the notion that the conspiracy 

has resulted in inflated total commissions and buyer broker commissions paid by home 

sellers, far exceeding what a competitive market would dictate.

105. In comparison to other countries with competitive real estate markets, 

commission rates in the United States are significantly higher, including in Texas where 

in 2022 the average commission was 5.59%. In fact, only 0.5% or less of sellers offer a 

buyer’s agent commission below 2% in Austin, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. This 

high commission rate prevails in the face of the realities of modern home buying where

51% of buyers find by themselves the homes they ultimately purchase on the internet, a 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 27 of 40 PageID #: 27
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 28

fact that should have radically driven down the cost of a buyer’s agent’s fee. Nonetheless, 

a large majority (73%) of agents say they will not negotiate their commissions, a stance 

that would be untenable in a competitive market.

106. Other economists have reached similar conclusions, highlighting the 

Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule's role in restraining price competition and 

encouraging steering.

F. Defendants’ Market Power in Texas

107. The relevant market for the claims herein is the bundle of services provided 

to home buyers and sellers by residential real estate brokers with access to MLSs. 

Defendants' control of MLSs allows them to impose anticompetitive NAR rules on Class 

members and other market participants.

108. The relevant geographic market for the claims is Texas. The vast majority 

of homes sold in Texas were listed on MLSs by brokers subject to MLS and NAR 

regulations.

109. Defendants and their co-conspirators collectively possess significant 

market power within each relevant market. Their influence is achieved through their 

participation and control over the local MLS and their substantial share of the local 

market.

110. Non-conspiring brokers who aim to compete outside the conspiracy face 

insurmountable barriers:

• Access to MLS is essential for brokers to effectively serve buyers and sellers in the 

market.

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 28 of 40 PageID #: 28
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 29 

• An alternative listing service aiming to compete with an MLS would require 

listings that are as comprehensive as an MLS, but brokers within the conspiracy 

lack the incentive to participate in such a service.

• Home buyers and sellers would be reluctant to utilize a new alternative listing 

service without a proven track record. 

• NAR advises MLSs to enter into non-compete agreements with third-party 

websites.

G. Continuous Accrual.

111. Over the course of the last four years leading up to the filing of this 

Complaint, Defendants, in collaboration with brokers operating within MLS-covered 

regions, systematically applied and received buyer broker commissions and total 

commissions at inflated rates, all due to their ongoing conspiracy. During this timeframe, 

Plaintiffs and other members of the Class were obliged to remit these inflated 

commissions in conjunction with the sale of residential real estate listed on MLSs. Each 

such payment over the past four years resulted in harm to Plaintiffs and their fellow Class 

members, giving rise to new causes of action stemming from these injuries.

112. Throughout the preceding four years, Defendants, alongside their coconspirators, have consistently upheld, executed, and enforced the Mandatory Offer of 

Compensation Rule and various other anticompetitive NAR directives on a nationwide 

scale.

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

113. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and as a class action 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), on behalf of the members of the 

Class defined as:

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 29 of 40 PageID #: 29
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 30

All persons in Texas who, from December 13, 2019, through 

the present, used any Defendant or their affiliates (with the 

exception of Keller Williams Realty, Inc.) as the listing broker

in the sale of a home listed on an MLS, and who paid a 

commission to the buyer’s broker in connection with the

sale of the home.

114. For Defendant Keller Williams Realty, Inc. and HomeServices of America, 

Inc., those Defendants were already included in a class certified in the matter styled 

Christopher Moehrl, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., Case No. 19-cv01610, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. However, that prior class did not include sales during the entirety of 

the proposed class period. Hence, a subclass for Keller Williams an HomeServices of 

America, Inc. should be certified as follows:

All persons in Texas who, from January 1, 2021, through 

March 29, 2023, used a listing broker affiliated with Keller 

Williams Realty, Inc. or HomeServices of America, Inc. in the 

sale of a home listed on an MLS, and who paid a commission 

to the buyer’s broker in connection with the sale of the home.

115. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their officers, directors and 

employees; any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate, legal

representative, heir or assign of any Defendant. Also excluded from the Class are any

judicial officer(s) presiding over this action and the members of his/her/their immediate 

family and judicial staff, jurors, and Plaintiffs’ counsel and employees of their law firms.

116. The Class is readily ascertainable because records of the relevant 

transactions exist.

117. Class members are so numerous that individual joinder of all its members 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 30 of 40 PageID #: 30
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 31

is impracticable. Due to the nature of the trade and commerce involved, Plaintiffs believe 

that the Class has many thousands of members, the exact number and their identities 

being known to Defendants and their co-conspirators.

118. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of 

the Class. Plaintiffs’ interests are aligned with, and not antagonistic to, those of the other

members of the Class.

119. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and 

predominate over any question affecting only individual Class members. These common

legal and factual questions, each of which also may be certified under Rule 23(c)(4), 

include but are not limited to the following:

a. Whether Defendants engaged in the alleged conspiracy;

b. Whether the conduct of Defendants’ and their co-conspirators 

caused injury to the business or property of Plaintiffs and the other 

members of the Class;

c. Whether the effect of Defendants’ conspiracy was to inflate

both total commissions and buyer broker commissions;

d. Whether the competitive harm from the conspiracy substantially 

outweighs any competitive benefits;

e. Whether Defendants’ conduct is unlawful; and

f. The appropriate class-wide measures of damages.

120. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical ofthe claims ofthe members ofthe Class because

their claims arise from the same course of conduct by Defendants and the relief sought

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 31 of 40 PageID #: 31
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 32

within the Class is common to each member.

121. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in the 

prosecution of antitrust class action litigation to represent themselves and the Class.

Together Plaintiffs and their counsel intend to prosecute this action vigorously for the 

benefit of the Class. The interests of Class members will be fairly and adequately 

protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel.

122. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy. The prosecution of separate actions by individual

members of the Class would impose heavy burdens on the Court and Defendants, and 

would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications of the questions of law and

fact common to the Class. A class action, on the other hand, would achieve substantial 

economies of time, effort, and expense, and would assure uniformity of decision as to

persons similarly situated without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other

undesirable results. Absent a class action, it would not be feasible for the members of the 

Class to seek redress for the violations of law alleged herein.

123. Additionally, the Class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(1) and/or (b)(2)

because:

a. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members 

would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with

respect to individual Class members that would establish 

incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants;

b. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 32 of 40 PageID #: 32
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 33 

would create a risk of adjudications with respect to them which

would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other 

Class members not parties to the adjudication, or substantially

impair orimpede their ability to protect their interests; and/or

c. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally 

applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final and 

injunctive relief with respect to the Class members as a whole.

VI. ANTITRUST INJURY

124. Defendants’ anticompetitive agreements and conduct have had the

following effects, among others:

a. Sellers of residential property have been forced to pay inflated costs 

to sell their homes through forced payments of commissions to 

buyer brokers;

b. Home sellers have been faced with the fear of steering, such that they 

set buyer broker commissions to induce buyer brokers to show the 

sellers’ homes to prospective buyers;

c. Price competition has been restrained among brokers seeking to be 

retained by home buyers, and by brokers seeking to represent home 

sellers; and

d. Defendants and their franchisees and subsidiaries have inflated

their profits by a significant margin by the increased total 

commissions and increased buyer broker commissions.

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 33 of 40 PageID #: 33
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 34 

125. By reason of the alleged violations of the antitrust laws, Plaintiffs and the 

Class have sustained injury to their businesses or property, having paid higher total 

commissions than they would have paid in the absence of Defendants’ anticompetitive 

conspiracy, and as a result have suffered damages. 

126. There are no pro-competitive effects of Defendants’ conspiracy that are not 

substantially outweighed by the conspiracy’s anticompetitive effects.

127. Significant economic evidence supports concluding that Defendants’ 

conspiracy has resulted in Class members paying buyer broker commissions and total

commissions that have been inflated to a supra-competitive level.

128. This is an antitrust injury of the type that the antitrust laws were meant to 

punish and prevent.

VII. CAUSES OF ACTION

A. Count 1: Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 – Against all 

Defendants (brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class).

129. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each paragraph above and in 

any other count of this Complaint.

130. Beginning more than four years before the filing of this Complaint, and

continuing into the present, Defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, 

or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of

Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C § 1. 

131. The conspiracy alleged herein consists of a continuing agreement among 

Defendants and Defendants’ co-conspirators to require sellers of residential property

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 34 of 40 PageID #: 34
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 35

to make inflated payments to the buyer broker.

132. In furtherance of the contract, combination, or conspiracy, Defendants and

their co- conspirators have committed one or more of the following overt acts:

a. Participated in the creation, maintenance, re-publication, and

implementation of the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule and 

other anticompetitive NAR rules;

b. Participated in the establishment, maintenance, and implementation 

of rules by local NAR associations and MLSs that implemented the

Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule and other anticompetitive 

NAR rules; and

c. Requiring franchisees of Defendants and others to implement the

Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule and other anticompetitive 

NAR rules, which each Defendant does through its franchise 

agreements, policy manuals, and other contracts with its franchisees, 

affiliates, subsidiaries, and realtors.

133. Defendants’ conspiracy has required sellers to pay buyer brokers, to pay an

inflated buyer broker commission and an inflated total commission, and it has restrained

price competition among buyer brokers. This harm to competition substantially

outweighs any competitive benefits arising from the conspiracy.

134. Defendants’ conspiracy has caused buyer broker commissions and total 

commissions to be inflated. Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class paid these 

inflated commissions during (and before) the last four years in connection with the sale 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 35 of 40 PageID #: 35
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 36

of residential real estate. Absent Defendants’ conspiracy, Plaintiffs and the other Class 

members would have paid substantially lower commissions because the broker 

representing the buyer of their homes would have been paid by the buyer.

135. Defendants’ conspiracy is a per se violation under the federal antitrust laws, 

specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1.

136. In the alternative, Defendants’ conspiracy is illegal under the federal

antitrust laws and violates 15 U.S.C. § 1 under a rule-of-reason analysis.

137. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ past and continuing 

violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, Plaintiffs and the other Class 

members have been injured in their business and property and suffered damages in an 

amount to be proven at trial.

B. Count 2: Violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act – Against 

Moreland Properties, MJHM LLC, and ATC Metro Properties, Inc.

138. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each paragraph above and in 

any other count of this Complaint.

139. Defendants acts and omissions violated the following provisions of the 

DTPA:

a. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46(b)(12), which prohibits 

representing that an agreement confers or involves rights, 

remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or 

which are prohibited by law; and

b. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.50(a)(3) which makes a defendant 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 36 of 40 PageID #: 36
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 37 

liable for any unconscionable action or course of action.

140. Defendants’ acts and omissions giving rise to the above violations cannot 

be characterized as advice, judgment, or opinion.

141. Defendants’ acts and omission giving rise to the above violations did not 

arise from a transaction involving total consideration by Plaintiffs of more than $500,000.

142. Defendants’ violations were knowing.

143. Plaintiffs seek recovery of their economic damages, additional damages in 

an amount up to three times their economic damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and 

costs of court.

VIII. JURY DEMAND

144. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, hereby 

demand a jury trial of all issues so triable.

IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

request relief and pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:

a. An Order certifying the Class under the appropriate provisions of Rule 23 

of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, and appointing Plaintiffs and their 

counsel to represent the Class;

b. Declarations that the actions of Defendants, as set forth above, are unlawful;

c. A permanent injunction under Section 16 of the Clayton Act enjoining 

Defendants from (1) requiring that sellers pay the buyer broker, (2) 

continuing to restrict competition among buyer brokers and seller brokers, 

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 37 of 40 PageID #: 37
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 38

and (3) engaging in any conduct determined to be unlawful;

d. Appropriate injunctive and equitable relief;

e. An award to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class for damages 

and/or restitution in an amount to be determined at trial;

f. An award of pre- and post-judgment interest to Plaintiffs;

g. An award to Plaintiffs for their costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’

fees and expenses;

h. An award of such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 38 of 40 PageID #: 38
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 39 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Julie Pettit 

Julie Pettit

State Bar No. 24065971 

jpettit@pettitfirm.com

David B. Urteago

State Bar No. 24079493 

durteago@pettitfirm.com

THE PETTIT LAW FIRM

2101 Cedar Springs, Suite 1540 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Telephone: (214) 329-0151 

Facsimile: (214) 329-4076 

Michael K. Hurst

State Bar No. 10316310 

mhurst@lynnllp.com 

Chris Schwegmann

State Bar No. 24051315 

cschwegmann@lynnllp.com

Yaman Dasai 

State Bar No. 24101695 

ydesai@lynnllp.com

LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP

2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Telephone: (214) 981-3800 

Facsimile: (214) 981-3839 

Laurence D. King

KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (415) 772-4700 

Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 

lking@kaplanfox.com

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 39 of 40 PageID #: 39
Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action Complaint Page 40

Frederic S. Fox

Jeffrey P. Campisi

Matthew P. McCahill

KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP

800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor

New York, NY 10022

Telephone: (212) 687-1980

Facsimile: (212) 687-7714

ffox@kaplanfox.com

jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

mmccahill@kaplanfox.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed 

Class

Case 4:23-cv-01104-SDJ Document 1 Filed 12/14/23 Page 40 of 40 PageID #: 40