REX has challenged the three-member panel's recent decision affirming a lower court's ruling regarding the National Association of Realtors' (NAR) no-commingling rule. REX believes this ruling contradicts established legal precedents and asserts that the rule constitutes evidence of concerted action among NAR members. The petition emphasizes that the panel erroneously treated NAR as a singular entity, neglecting the collective behavior of its members and how it influences real estate competition, particularly involving Zillow. REX argues that this misinterpretation has serious implications for antitrust enforcement in the real estate industry.
REX contends that the panel's ruling improperly interprets the no-commingling rule, failing to recognize it as evidence of concerted action among NAR's members.
The panel's decision reflects a misunderstanding of the NAR as a single entity, disregarding the collective behavior of its members in enforcing the rule.
REX asserts that the no-commingling rule is a product of concerted action among NAR members, influencing how Zillow operates within the real estate market.
By requiring proof of a specific agreement between NAR and Zillow, the panel overlooked the broader implications of NAR's role in shaping antitrust dynamics.
Collection
[
|
...
]