> there is no “cartel” or anything preventing any agent or brokerage from charging anything they wish.

Redfin literally just removed itself from the NAR for that reason (and also alleged sexual harassment in the organization). https://www.redfin.com/news/redfin-is-leaving-nar/

>> In the many marketplaces governed by its policies, NAR still blocks sellers from listing homes that don’t pay a commission to the buyer’s agent, and it blocks websites like Redfin.com from showing for-sale-by-owner listings alongside agent-listed homes.

>> In about half the U.S., including in cities like Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Long Island, Minneapolis, Nashville, Phoenix and Salt Lake City, we can’t quit NAR individually or en masse, because NAR membership is required for agents to access listing databases, lockboxes, and industry-standard contracts. It’s impossible to be an agent if you can’t see which homes are for sale, or unlock the door to those homes, or even write an offer.

The DoJ also alleged exactly that in 2019. https://www.justice.gov/media/1105806/dl?inline

>> These NAR rules, policies, and practices include: (a) prohibiting NAR-affiliated multiple-listing services (“MLSs”) from disclosing to prospective buyers the amount of commission that the buyer broker will earn if the buyer purchases a home listed on the MLS; (b) allowing buyer brokers to misrepresent to buyers that a buyer broker’s services are free; (c) enabling buyer brokers to filter MLS listings based on the level of buyer broker commissions offered and to exclude homes with lower commissions from consideration by potential home buyers; and (d) limiting access to the lockboxes that provide licensed brokers with physical access to a home that is for sale to only brokers who are members of a NAR-affiliated MLS

And then there was People v. National Association of Realtors, 1981 https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/1...

>> The original three-count complaint alleged: (1) unlawful restrictions of trade under the Cartwright Act through certain restrictive regulations of the multiple listing service (MLS) operated by SDBR, including the fact only board members were entitled to access to that necessary service; (2) restraint of trade because of commission rate price fixing; [...]

>> On the first cause of action the court found a group boycott and issued an injunction guaranteeing access, on conditions, to the residential portion of the MLS to all licensed brokers and their salespersons without regard to SDBR membership. The court found no such boycott as to the MLS investment property portion. All other MLS operating rules were found to be reasonable, including a requirement excluding all listings except exclusive-right-to-sell agreements.

>> [On the second] Based in part on [expert witness] testimony, the trial court found the standard rates prevailing over a long period of time to be evidence of collusive price setting or other artificial influence. It also found four activities attributable to SDBR policies which are useful to maintain such uniformity: publishing and distributing sample literature using 6 percent and 50/50 split as examples; requiring the listing commission to be included in the published MLS, thus aiding those who would bring pressure to bear on price cutters; entertaining complaints against undercutters through its ethics or arbitration machinery brought by persons motivated by the undercutter's deviation from the usual 6 percent rate and 50/50 commission split, and continuing the foregoing practices even after it ceased publicly recommending adherence to the standard rate it had developed and maintained for many years. Each of the above findings is supported by substantial evidence.