Realtor associations, MLSs push back on steering allegations

The slew of defendants in the Zea antitrust lawsuit filed against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) have been busy rejecting the lawsuit’s claims. On Wednesday, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, as well as a response in opposition to plaintiff Jorge A. Zea’s motion for preliminary injunction. 

Filed in August in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida’s West Palm Beach Division, the lawsuit claims that the defendants engaged in a “coordinated scheme” to restrict consumer choice and maintain elevated prices, harming his brokerage model.

Zea runs www.snapflatfee.com, a brokerage that charges sellers a listing fee in exchange for limited services. Zea’s firm syndicates listings data to the MLS data feeds and forwards all buyer leads “regardless of their origin” directly to the seller. According to Zea, buyer’s agents associated with the defendants steer clients away from properties that offered a reduced or non-existent buyer’s agent commission. 

The first motion to dismiss was jointly filed by all of the defendants, which include NAR, Beaches MLS; Broward, Palm Beaches & St. Lucie Realtors; Miami Association of Realtors; Orlando Regional Realtor Association; Florida Gulf Coast MLS; Stellar MLS; Space Coast MLS and Space Coast Association of Realtors; RealMLS; Northeast Florida Association of Realtors; Central Panhandle Association of Realtors; Connecticut Association of Realtors; Smart MLS; West and Southeast Realtors of the Valley and Midwest Real Estate Data.

Zea fails to state a claim say defendants

In this motion they argue that Zea’s suit should be dismissed as he fails to state a claim in his complaint. According to the defendants, Zea’s suit should be dismissed because he has not shown evidence of a personal injury, or any agreement or conspiracy among the defendants, and he has not defined any anticompetitive harm. They also argue that he is trying to relitigate issues that were already addressed in the Sitzer/Burnett and other commission lawsuits. Additionally, the filing highlights that Zea already objected to the final approval of the Sitzer/Burnett settlement only to have the court reject his challenge. 

In addition to this motion, the defendants located outside of Florida also filed a separate motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed. They argue that the Florida court does not have jurisdiction over them. Additionally, Smart MLS, which is located in Connecticut, claims that it has a contract with the plaintiff requiring disputes about its MLS participation to be litigated in Connecticut. 

The plaintiff’s response to these two motions are due by October 22, 2025. 

Zea claims defendants need to follow their own rules

Alongside their motions to dismiss, the defendants also responded to Zea’s request for a preliminary injunction. Filed in late August, Zea’s motion asks the court to make the defendants follow their own rules — meant to protect consumers, ensure transparency and support competition.

He argues that, despite changes from the commission lawsuit settlement, MLSs still let users filter or hide listings based on brokerage, agent or buyer broker pay. Zea also claims MLSs are concealing listing broker contact details on public sites and not enforcing the required buyer broker agreement rule.

In their response, the defendants argued that an order compelling blanket “enforcement” of MLS and NAR rules would be vague and impossible to police. They also claim that they already enforce MLS and their rules through the normal channel of individualized complaints and investigations. Additionally, they claim that the evidence Zea has presented does not show systematic non‑enforcement of policies or a conspiracy to do so. 

The plaintiff has until Oct. 15, 2025, to respond to the defendants’ opposition.