Another Blow to “Three-Way Agreement” Antitrust Claims: Michigan and Louisiana Courts Dismiss Key Challenges to NAR Structure
In what is becoming a developing trend in antitrust litigation against the National Association of REALTORS® (“NAR”), and state and local associations, federal courts in both Michigan and Louisiana have recently dealt significant setbacks to plaintiffs challenging the so-called “three-way agreement” structure governing MLS access. These decisions underscore a recurring judicial theme: plaintiffs continue to struggle to plausibly allege antitrust injury or a cognizable restraint of trade arising from REALTOR® membership requirements tied to MLS participation.
Background: The “Three-Way Agreement” and the Recent Wave of Litigation
At the center of these lawsuits is NAR’s longstanding organizational structure, often referred to as the “three-way agreement,” which generally requires real estate professionals to maintain membership in NAR, as well as state and local REALTOR® associations, often as a condition of gaining access to a local Multiple Listing Service (MLS).
Plaintiffs across several jurisdictions have filed lawsuits arguing that the “three-way agreement” operates as an unlawful tying arrangement or group boycott in violation of federal antitrust laws, particularly Section 1 of the Sherman Act [see https://bit.ly/4bUn0ug]. The theory is straightforward: MLS access is essential to compete in the modern brokerage market and conditioning that access on association membership allegedly forces brokers into a bundled arrangement that restricts competition. However, as courts have increasingly emphasized, antitrust law protects competition not competitors, and that distinction has proven decisive.
The Michigan Case: Failure to Allege Antitrust Injury
On March 31, 2026, the federal District Court in Hardy v. National Association of Realtors [see https://bit.ly/4sFQWBz] dismissed the plaintiffs’ case filed against NAR. The plaintiffs, Michigan brokers, challenged the requirement that access to the Realcomp MLS be conditioned on three-tiered REALTOR® membership. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege harm to competition in a defined market.
The Court emphasized that plaintiffs did not demonstrate actual market-wide anticompetitive effects, relied on conclusory allegations, and failed to show consumer harm. These deficiencies proved fatal under modern antitrust pleading standards.
The Louisiana Decision: Federal Claims Dismissed
A few days earlier, on March 25, 2026, a federal District Court in Louisiana in DeYoung, et al. v. Greater Baton Rouge Association of Realtors, Inc. [see https://bit.ly/4v4Bq3G], reached a similar conclusion in a nearly identical challenge. The court dismissed the majority of federal antitrust claims, finding insufficient factual allegations demonstrating a concerted restraint of trade and failure to establish a plausible relevant market or competitive harm.
The Louisiana District Court, in accepting the report of the Magistrate Judge in its decision, held that the plaintiffs failed to allege antitrust injury, lack of consumer harm, and deficiencies in tying claims. While limited opportunities to amend remained, the decision represented a substantial victory for NAR and other defendants.
Other Recent Key Decisions
These recent rulings are not occurring in isolation. Over the past two years, courts have repeatedly dismissed similar antitrust challenges to NAR policies. For example, in 2025, Federal courts dismissed claims in similar cases such as Muhammad v. NAR [see https://bit.ly/4tnMTtz], Homie v. NAR [see NAR Prevails in Homie Litigation] and Eytalis v. Texas Association of REALTORS® [see Judge Rules in Favor of NAR in Eytalis Litigation], reinforcing that plaintiffs must allege actual competitive harm, and not merely dissatisfaction with industry structure.
Courts evaluating MLS-related claims have emphasized the need to show consumer harm, not just broker inconvenience or increased costs. Even outside the “three-way agreement” context, courts have shown skepticism toward broad antitrust attacks on MLS rules. In earlier litigation involving listing policies, courts found no actionable antitrust violation where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate harm to buyers and sellers.
A Pattern Emerges Presenting Hurdles for Plaintiffs
These rulings reflect a broader judicial trend rejecting similar antitrust challenges. Courts have consistently required plaintiffs to demonstrate actual competitive harm, not merely dissatisfaction with industry structure or increased costs. Courts have identified several recurring issues, such as a failure to define a relevant market, lack of antitrust injury, strong pro-competitive justifications for MLS systems, and the voluntary nature of association membership frameworks.
Looking Ahead
These decisions suggest courts are drawing a clear line, that allegations that MLS access is invaluable and should not be restricted by the “third-party agreement” are not enough to establish antitrust violations. Plaintiffs must demonstrate actual harm to competition. Until such a showing is made, courts appear inclined to view the REALTOR® membership model as part of a cooperative marketplace that enhances, rather than suppresses, competition. For NAR, state and local associations, brokers and other industry participants, these rulings reinforce that the “three-way agreement” remains intact for now and that antitrust challenges based solely on membership requirements face significant legal hurdles.
About the Author: Legal Corner Column author John Dolgetta, Esq. is the principal of the law firm of Dolgetta Law, PLLC. For information about Dolgetta Law, PLLC and John Dolgetta, Esq., please visit http://www.dolgettalaw.com. The foregoing article is for informational purposes only and does not confer an attorney-client relationship and shall not be considered legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the HGAR, its affiliates, or any other entity.
