Burnett Questions Answered 

In the case of Burnett v. NAR et al, on Tuesday, Oct. 31, the jury found NAR and the co-defendants liable. The plaintiffs claimed real estate commission rates are too high, buyer brokers are being paid too much, and that NAR rules and corporate defendants' practices lead to set pricing. 

The reality is that NAR rules prioritize consumers, support market-driven pricing, and promote business competition. We stand by the fact that NAR's guidance for local MLS broker marketplaces ensures consumers get comprehensive, equitable, transparent, and reliable home information and that brokerages of any size, service, or pricing model get a fair shot at competing. 

Litigation FAQs

What are next steps legally and the timing?

What will be the basis for NAR's appeal?

Is there anything REALTORS®, brokers, state/local associations, or MLSs need to do differently because of this verdict?

What does the future of buyer representation look like as a result of the verdict?

Does NAR have the funds to pay the proposed damages or post a bond to file an appeal?

How does this verdict affect other ongoing litigation, including the other seller lawsuit?

Is there any scenario where NAR would consider settling?

Would NAR ever consider changing the cooperative compensation rule?

Do you expect the plaintiffs to seek an injunction that would require NAR to stop making the rule mandatory or eliminate the rule altogether?

What's the status with the Department of Justice and has anything changed with this verdict?