Supreme Court Won’t Hear NAR Petition in Pocket Listing Case

The Supreme Court is giving the National Association of Realtors the silent treatment as it fights a lawsuit pertaining to pocket listings.

The highest court in the land on Monday denied the real estate trade group’s petition for a “writ of certiorari,” which asked the court to review a ruling made by a lower court in the lawsuit filed by The PLS, Inman reported. SCOTUS’ decision came without comment.

The decision kicks the case back to a lower court, the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, and allows it to proceed. It also overturns the decision by a lower court to throw out the case brought forth by the PLS, now known as the NLS.

“We are disappointed the Supreme Court has decided not to hear our appeal of the decision not to dismiss the case,” a spokesperson for NAR told the outlet, adding the group remained confident it would prevail.

The lawsuit accuses NAR, the California Regional MLS, Bright MLS and Midwest Real Estate Data of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act and California’s Cartwright Act.

The PLS brought the lawsuit after the defendants adopted the Clear Cooperation Policy, which forces listing brokers to submit a listing to their MLS within one business day of publicly marketing a property. The PLS formerly ran a private listing service, which was covered under the policy.

NAR has defended the CCP, arguing it was essential to protect consumers, giving them access to more information about market conditions. The PLS said the policy harms listing and buyer agents by restricting competition to Realtor-affiliates MLSs and threatening MLS membership suspensions for those who don’t comply.

The Justice Department has been investigating NAR over antitrust concerns. In 2021, the DOJ pulled out of a settlement with the trade group so it could pursue a further investigation of NAR.

The trade group has had more success in a different antitrust case involving pocket listings. In 2021, a judge struck down a challenge from Top Agents Network, which argued the CCP was damaging to its business model. The judge ruled TAN has an uncompetitive model itself while acknowledging its argument against the CCP was “reasonable.”