“Like the previous settlement, the current proposed settlement would make only cosmetic changes to MLS PIN’s rules with respect to sellers providing offers of compensation to buyers’ agents,” the filing states. “These changes perpetuate the status quo—alleged to be the product of collusion among competing brokers through MLS PIN—and neither protect nor restore competition to this important market. The current proposed settlement would not change the dynamic according to which sellers would continue to offer ‘customary’ commissions out of fear that buyer brokers will direct buyers away from listings with lower commissions, a well-documented phenomenon known as steering.”
Additionally, the DOJ claims that the monetary relief outlined in the settlement is “similarly lacking,” despite the parties having increased the amount from $3.0 million to $3.95 million.
According to the settlement, roughly a third of the settlement amount would go toward the plaintiffs attorneys and some would also go toward paying the settlement administrator.
“Without information about the class size, the distribution plan, or an approximation of the expected monetary benefit each class member stands to receive, the Court has no way to assess the substantiality of the monetary relief. Thus, the monetary compensation does not provide a basis to conclude that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate,” the DOJ’s brief states.
The DOJ claims that it has been fighting to “inject competition into residential real-estate markets.”
“The United States has a strong interest in protecting American home sellers and buyers and ensuring that private class-action settlement agreements do not perpetuate serious competitive concerns,” the brief continues.
Unlike the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) commission lawsuit settlement agreement, which bars all offers of cooperative compensation, whether they come from the seller or the listing agent, from the MLS, the MLS PIN settlement requires that the seller make an offer of compensation to the buyer’s broker for their agent to enter into the MLS. However, the offer may be zero cents, instead of the one cent requirement currently in place.
“The United States previously explained that these cosmetic rule changes would not meaningfully address MLS PIN’s or its participants’ longstanding conduct, and thus they would leave in place a status quo that is the product of alleged collusion among competitors,” the filing states. “The proposed rule will still pressure most sellers to offer ‘customary’ commissions out of fear of steering. When sellers make such offers, buyer brokers need not compete on price to attract buyers, which thereby keeps commissions high. Worse, the settlement agreement would mandate that these rules stay in place for a minimum of three years, prohibiting MLS PIN from adopting a rule that does not harm competition.”
This filing from the DOJ was prompted by the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of their settlement filed in January of 2025. An earlier version of their settlement, which was first filed in summer 2023, was granted preliminary approval in September of 2023. However, later that month, the DOJ filed its initial statement of interest, in which it said it had “significant concerns” about the proposed settlement agreement. MLS PIN and the Nosalek plaintiffs went back to the drawing board in filing an amended settlement agreement, which the DOJ also took issue with.
It remains to be seen whether Judge Patti B. Saris will grant preliminary approval to the settlement despite the DOJ’s misgivings.
