Louisiana Judge Dismisses Antitrust Suit Over Nar Membership Rules

A federal judge in Louisiana is the latest judge to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit related to the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) three-way membership agreement. 

Filed in early January 2025 by brokers Carla DeYoung and Carlos Alvarez, along with agents Tammy Jo Williams and Darlene Currie, the DeYoung lawsuit alleges that NAR’s three-way membership agreement violated a plethora of laws including the Fair Housing Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.

Defendants in the lawsuit included NAR, the Greater Baton Rouge Association of Realtors (GBRAR), the New Orleans Metropolitan Association of Realtors (NOMAR), ROAM MLS and several other Louisiana based defendants.

In a ruling filed last Wednesday, Judge Shelly Dick permanently dismissed the federal antitrust and Fair Housing Act claims against NAR, GBRAR, NOMAR and ROAM MLS.

She also dismissed the same claims against Kenneth Damann, the registered agent for ROAM MLS and executive vice president of GBRAR, without prejudice and gave the plaintiffs three weeks to file an amended complaint. 

Additionally, Judge Dick ruled that the state law claims will be deferred to a later date. This ruling came, as Judge Dick accepted a report and recommendation written by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes earlier this month regarding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by the defendants in March 2025.

In her report, Magistrate Judge wrote that despite the plaintiffs’ complaints that “the desirable service (MLS access) is impermissibly tied to the undesired membership in the associations, but nowhere do Plaintiffs explain how their forced membership in the associations harms the consumers.”

“Plaintiffs further assert that Defendants’ policies and practices disparately impact minority consumers and communities access to essential data, equitable competition in the market and market entry. However, there is not a single fact in the Amended Complaint that shows how any of Defendants’ policies specifically limit minority consumers and communities,” the report states. “Therefore, Plaintiffs’ wholly conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a disparate impact claim.”

Judge Dick’s ruling comes despite the plaintiffs filing an objection to the magistrate judge’s report, in which they claim that the report “mischaracterizes persuasive case law,” related to their claims. The judge did not address this argument in her ruling. 

In an emailed statement, an NAR spokesperson wrote that the organization was “pleased” that the court adopted the magistrate judge’s report. 

“As we have previously stated, NAR stands by the pro-competitive, pro-consumer local broker marketplaces, which local associations may choose to provide as a member benefit,” the spokesperson added. “Each local MLS sets its own requirements for determining access to the platform and for governing participants’ conduct on the platforms.”

In November of 2025, NAR unveiled a series of MLS policy changes, including allowing each MLS to set its own access and membership rules.

Federal judges in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Texas have previously dismissed similar lawsuits, however there are other lawsuits related to NAR’s three-way membership agreement pending in Michigan and Maryland.