Brokerages look to dismiss Cwynar homebuyer commission lawsuit
Briefly

Brokerages look to dismiss Cwynar homebuyer commission lawsuit
"Filed in late June 2025, the Cwynar suit claims that policies the National Association of Realtors (NAR) had in place prior to its settlement business practice changes going into effect in August 2024 resulted in buyers paying inflated commissions. In October 2025, the Cwynar suit was combined with six other lawsuits, including the Tuccori homebuyer suit, which was originally filed in late 2023 and named At World Properties as its only defendant."
"In their motion, The Agency and Realty ONE Group note that the Cwynar lawsuit was filed in response to the Sitzer/Burnett verdict, in which home sellers alleged that they overpaid for broker services due to a supposed conspiracy between NAR and national brokerage companies. The Agency and Realty ONE Group argue that based on the facts established in the Sitzer/Burnett suit, the homebuyers who filed the Cwynar suit were not the ones who directly paid"
"Due to this, they cannot claim that they overpaid for these services due to alleged antitrust issues. The defendants added in the filing that since the plaintiffs are an indirect purchaser of buyer-broker services, federal antitrust law prohibits Plaintiff from seeking damages. Further, Plaintiff's request for an injunction fails because home sellers, who are the direct purchasers of buyer-broker services, are better positioned to seek relief, which they have already done,"
The Cwynar suit, filed in late June 2025, alleges that National Association of Realtors policies before settlement changes in August 2024 caused buyers to pay inflated commissions. In October 2025 the suit was consolidated with six other lawsuits, including the Tuccori suit originally filed in late 2023 naming At World Properties. Fathom and HomeSmart have contested the consolidation. Defendants The Agency and Realty ONE Group argue that the Cwynar plaintiffs were not direct payors of buyer-broker services and therefore cannot seek antitrust damages as indirect purchasers under federal law. The defendants further argue lack of standing and contend injunctive relief is unnecessary because sellers obtained settlements restricting conduct.
Read at www.housingwire.com
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]