CCIMLS Compensation Rule Changes
A summary of the new CCIMLS changes taking effect on August 12, 2024
In March of 2024, the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) announced a settlement agreement that would resolve litigation brought by home sellers related to the practice of mandatory offers of listing broker compensation in MLSs.
In the wake of the Sitzer/Burnett jury verdict and awarding of $5 billion in damages in October 2022, more than 30 copycat lawsuits were filed across the country targeting MLSs, REALTOR® associations, brokerages large and small, and agent teams. NAR looked for a path to settle the lawsuits and create rules for the real estate industry going forward on compensation.
Additionally, the United States Department of Justice had been investigating the real estate industry for its commission practices - and finally, gave a preview of its position in January 2024 as objected to a proposed settlement in the Nosalek v. MLS PIN lawsuit.
Ultimately, NAR chose to settle the Sitzer/Burnett lawsuit by making a financial payment to the plaintiffs and agreeing to a series of practice changes as part of the settlement, including removing the offer of compensation fields, the removal of the unilateral offer of compensation REALTOR®-owned MLSs, and the banning of sharing commission through the MLS.
On Friday, June 14, 2024, CCIMLS executed Appendix B of the NAR settlement, opting into the practice changes and being granted liability coverage. For more on the changes to CCIMLS, go here.
The CCIMLS Board of Directors felt there was a need to settle the threat of a lawsuit against the company and after much consideration, decided that opting in to the NAR settlement was the best available option to avoid future risk to the company. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of REALTOR® brokerage members received liability protection due to NAR’s settlement. To protect our brokerage members moving forward, CCIMLS felt the best option was to adopt the practice changes in the settlement agreement - ensuring future liability protection for all member brokerages and agents.
CCIMLS opting into the settlement is not an endorsement of the verdict reached in the trial or the practice changes in the settlement. Opting in is simply the best of the options available to CCIMLS and our members in the wake of the October 2023 verdict.
The lawsuits were over a rule that was mandatory for Association of REALTOR®-owned MLSs and which many broker-owned MLSs also had: - that to list a property in the MLS, the listing broker must offer cooperative compensation. As a result of the settlement, that rule will be eliminated. No offer of compensation may now be made in the MLS, or in any tool or data feed available in the MLS.
NAR and the corporate defendants were found liable in the Sitzer/Burnett court case and were also assessed with more than $5 billion in damages. This jury decided that the mandatory compensation rule was anti-competitive and violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
As a result, NAR was limited to the following options::
Post Bond and Appeal: NAR felt it had solid legal grounds for appeal based on several decisions in the case. However, to appeal, a defendant must post a bond. Simply put, NAR did not have the cash to post the bond based on the damage award amount.
Declare Bankruptcy: Since NAR does not have the assets to pay the award damages, NAR could have declared bankruptcy and attempted to reorganize. However, doing so, would not settle the more than 30 copycat lawsuits and created continuance legal strains on its member brokerages, MLSs, and associations across the country. Even after declaring bankruptcy, the liability would remain.
Settle: NAR has established a settlement agreement that includes affordable damages and implements a series of practice changes for MLSs to adopt, aimed at altering behavior moving forward. Additionally, NAR successfully negotiated liability coverage for its associations, MLSs, and the majority of its member brokerages and agents.
The MLS cooperative compensation model rule (MLS Model Rule) was introduced in the 1990s in response to calls from consumer protection advocates for buyer representation.