Homie Antitrust Appeal: Why the Dismissal Stands

Homie lost its antitrust appeal on August 11, 2026, when the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal because its claims were untimely. Later alleged boycotts did not rescue the case: the complaint failed to plausibly connect those acts and the challenged association rules to the same exclusionary conspiracy. The ruling did not establish that every alleged act of steering was lawful. Published opinion, No. 25-4101.

Which claims and defendants were before the court?

Homie Technology’s appeal concerned claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Utah Antitrust Act. The defendants on appeal were the National Association of Realtors, Anywhere Real Estate, HomeServices of America, HSF Affiliates and RE/MAX.

Two original defendants were outside that group. Keller Williams settled before the district court ruled on dismissal and was not a party to the appeal. Homie had dismissed its claims against Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service without prejudice. The district court also dismissed a tortious-interference claim; the appellate opinion’s analysis addresses the antitrust claims. Opinion, pages 1–9.

Homie alleged that competitors avoided its listings because it offered lower buyer-broker compensation, and that some coordinated boycotts through Facebook groups. Its theory against the remaining defendants centered on association rules allegedly enabling that conduct.

Using Homie’s labels, the challenge covered buyer-broker compensation, commission filtering, free-service representations, commission concealment and Clear Cooperation. These were historical rules described in the lawsuit, not a description of today’s MLS requirements. Opinion, pages 5–7.

Why the four-year limitations period mattered

Both the federal and Utah antitrust claims carried four-year limitations periods. The general rule described by the court starts the clock when a defendant’s act injures the plaintiff’s business.

Homie did not challenge the district court’s determination that its claims based on the NAR rules accrued between 2015 and 2019. It sued in 2024, more than four years after even the latest accrual date. The relevant dates were therefore when these claims arose, not simply when NAR first adopted each rule. Opinion, pages 10–11.

To overcome that timing problem, Homie invoked the continuing-conspiracy doctrine. Under that doctrine, an injurious act continuing a conspiracy can start a new limitations period for damages caused by that act. The Tenth Circuit required the later acts to be distinct from the earlier conduct while advancing the same conspiracy. A recent injury alone did not establish that connection. Opinion, pages 11–12.

Why Homie’s continuing-conspiracy argument failed

Homie did not contend that NAR or the brokerage defendants directly participated in the alleged boycott. Instead, it sought to hold them responsible for individual members’ steering on the theory that the rules embodied an exclusionary agreement shared by all NAR members. The court found that the complaint did not plausibly establish that the rules expressed the same exclusionary objective as the alleged boycott. Opinion, pages 12–13.

The panel relied partly on Homie’s own account of its early success. Homie entered Utah in 2015 and alleged that, at various times between 2017 and 2021, it ranked among the state’s five largest brokerages by market share. The court reasoned that its ability to enter and compete under the challenged rules undermined this complaint’s claim that the rules themselves excluded discount competitors. That reasoning was specific to Homie’s allegations; it does not establish that initial business success defeats every later antitrust claim.

The court also distinguished enabling misconduct from agreeing to it. A rule that makes a boycott easier to carry out does not, by itself, show that the association and every member agreed to the boycott. The panel said an additional agreement between the named defendants and the alleged boycotters to use the rules against Homie would change the analysis. Homie had alleged no such agreement. Opinion, pages 14–16.

Why annual reissuance did not restart the clock

Homie separately pointed to NAR’s annual reaffirmation and continuing enforcement of the rules. That argument encountered the same defect: renewing the rules could not continue an exclusionary conspiracy that the complaint had not plausibly alleged.

The court did not declare that policy enforcement can never constitute a continuing violation. It distinguished an earlier student-housing case in which an exclusionary agreement had been established and ongoing enforcement continued it. Homie lacked that foundation. Opinion, pages 18–20.

What the ruling leaves unresolved about steering

The appeal did not involve a trial on steering. Reviewing a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the panel assessed whether the complaint stated a legally sufficient, plausible claim, accepting well-pleaded facts in Homie’s favor. It did not weigh trial evidence or determine which alleged steering incidents occurred.

The panel expressly allowed, for purposes of its reasoning, that the alleged boycott could itself violate antitrust law. Because the limitations ruling resolved the appeal, it did not reach the district court’s alternative conclusion concerning antitrust injury. Opinion, pages 9–13.

For leaders following housing litigation developments, that distinction matters when assessing another complaint. A hypothetical claim that specific competitors recently agreed to refuse a rival’s listings would require analysis of that agreement, its participants and its timing. Homie’s failed attempt to connect later conduct to older rules would not resolve those questions.

Does the opinion change listing or compensation obligations?

The opinion affirms a dismissal; it does not amend MLS policies or create a new transaction deadline. Current MLS policy and infrastructure must be assessed separately from the historical rules discussed in the case.

NAR’s May 3, 2024, policy announcement established August 17, 2024, as the implementation date for mandatory changes at Realtor-owned MLSs, including prohibiting offers of buyer-broker compensation through the MLS. NAR’s implementation announcement.

NAR’s policy pages dated January 1, 2026, also specify that:

• MLS participants and subscribers cannot filter or restrict listings communicated to consumers based on cooperating-broker compensation or brokerage or agent identity; MLSs cannot enable that filtering. Policy Statement 8.5.
• Subject to contrary state or federal law or regulation, MLS participants working with buyers must enter into written agreements before home tours. Those agreements must specify compensation objectively, limit the broker’s compensation to the agreed amount or rate, and state that fees are negotiable. Policy Statement 8.13.

For decisions about representation and compensation, use the applicable current rules and agreements. When reviewing a specific steering complaint or policy revision, ask antitrust counsel to assess the alleged agreement, the actors and the dates.