REX’s Supreme Court Petition Denied: What It Means (and Doesn’t) for Real Estate
The Supreme Court has officially denied Real Estate Exchange, Inc. (REX)’s petition for a writ of certiorari, ending its high-profile antitrust case against Zillow and the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR). While headlines might make it sound like a landmark ruling, the reality is simpler: the Court just opted not to take the case, not to weigh in on whether NAR’s policies are legal or not.
REX’s case centered on NAR’s so-called “segregation rule,” a policy encouraging MLSs to separate member listings from non-member listings on property platforms like Zillow. After Zillow joined over 200 NAR-affiliated MLSs, most of which adopted this rule, it redesigned its listing pages so that only MLS listings showed up on the default “Agent Listings” tab. REX’s listings were moved to a second tab labeled “Other Listings,” which most users didn’t click. REX claimed this destroyed its visibility and ultimately its business.
The legal question was whether an “optional” rule, like NAR’s segregation policy, can still amount to a conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Ninth Circuit said no. Since the rule wasn’t mandatory and not all MLSs adopted it, the court concluded there was no concerted action. REX and the DOJ argued that even optional policies can produce anticompetitive results if adopted widely and enforced by market pressures rather than formal penalties.
REX hoped the Supreme Court would resolve a growing circuit split on this issue. But with the denial of its petition, the Ninth Circuit ruling stands.
So what does this mean for real estate agents?
-
It doesn’t mean the rule is legal. It just means the Court won’t review this specific case.
-
It doesn’t end the scrutiny on NAR’s policies. The Department of Justice remains actively involved in other cases challenging NAR rules, especially around buyer commissions and listing visibility.
-
It does reaffirm the value of transparency in listing displays. Segregating listings, even if “optional,” can affect competition. Agents should understand how their local MLS and platforms like Zillow structure listing visibility.
-
It reinforces how much weight “market norms” carry. When a policy is adopted by most major players, “optional” starts to look mandatory in practice.
Bottom line, the denial is procedural, not a policy endorsement. The legal questions about NAR rules, competition, and listing control are still very much alive. Agents should keep paying attention.