The
real
estate
industry
is
facing
yet
another

commission
lawsuit,
but
this
time
the
plaintiff
is
not
seeking
class-action
status.

In
a
lawsuit
filed
Thursday
in
the

U.S.
District
Court
for
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
Hao
Zhe
Wang
accused
real
estate
industry
players
of
“agreeing,
combining
and
conspiring
to
impose,
implement
and
enforce
anticompetitive
restraints
and
the
cause
Plaintiff
to
pay
inflated
commissions
on
the
purchase
and
sale
of
his
homes
in
violation
of
federal
and
state
statutes.”

An
attorney
himself,
according
to
the
court
docket,
Wang
appears
to
be
representing
himself
in
the
lawsuit.

Defendants
in
the
lawsuit
include
the


National
Association
of
Realtors
(NAR),
the

Real
Estate
Board
of
New
York
(REBNY),


HomeServices
of
America,


Compass,


eXp
World
Holdings,


Douglas
Elliman,

Halstead
Real
Estate,

Brown
Harris
Stevens
Residential
Sales
and

Realty
One
Group.

NAR
and

Compass
have
entered
into
nationwide
settlement
agreements
for
the

commission
lawsuits.

While
it
may
not
be
seeking
class-action
status
like
other

commission
lawsuits,
the
Wang
suit
takes
aim
at
NAR’s
Participation
Rule,
which
requires
listing
brokers
to
make
a
blanket
offer
of
compensation
to
buyer’s
brokers
in
order
to
list
a
property
on
a
Realtor-affiliated
MLS.
Although
REBNY
is
not
affiliated
with
a
Realtor
association,
it
did

previously
have
a
rule
in
place
with
the
same
compensation
requirement.

From
2014
to
the
present,
Wang
reportedly
bought
several
homes
in
Massachusetts,
New
York,
New
Jersey
and
Washington,
D.C.,
according
to
the
complaint.
Wang
claims
that
he
found
the
properties
on
his
own
via
searches
on


Zillow
and

StreetEasy,
but
when
he
expressed
interest
in
submitting
offers,
listing
agents
refused
to
engage
because
he
was
an
unrepresented
buyer.

“Plaintiff
has
thus
contacted
hundreds
of
listing
brokers,
and
the
conversations
they
have
with
him
always
turned
into
their
professional
‘ethics’
of
not
taking
offers
from
unrepresented
buyers
and
about
Plaintiff’s
need
to
use
the
listing
broker
as
a
dual
agent
or
a
colleague
or
employee
of
the
broker
as
his
buyer
agent,”
the
complaint
states.

Additionally,
Wang
wrote
in
his
complaint
that
as
a
repeat
buyer,
he
did
not
rely
on
his
agents
for
advice
or
recommendations
on
inspectors,
contractors,
mortgage
brokers
or
electricians.
He
added
that
during
price
negotiations
he
“rarely
solicited
advice
from
the
buyer
brokers,
nor
did
he
trust
unsolicited
advice
that
he
received
from
them,
because
the
brokers
were
either
the
listing
brokers
themselves
or
their
employees
whose
loyalty
may
be
divided.”

The
plaintiff
also
claimed
that
the
agents
and
brokers
he
worked
with
falsely
advertised
that
they
would
represent
him
for
free
as
a
buyer.

“The
reality
is,
of
course,
that
buyer
brokers,
just
like
the
mortgage
brokers,
lawyers,
home
inspectors,
were
all
paid
by
the
Plaintiffs
on
the
day
of
closing,”
the
complaint
states.
“Yet
because
of
the
elaborate
lie
and
ruse,
Plaintiff,
like
most
other
home
buyers,
were
given
to
believe
that
he
was
not
paying
for
anything.

“These
misrepresentations
and
false
advertising
misled
Plaintiff
and
denied
him
the
chance
to
set
terms
of
his
relationship
with
these
buyer
or
dual
agents,
and
caused
him
to
miss
out
on
possible
savings
from
negotiated
rates
of
services
he
received
from
the
buyer
or
dual
agents.”

Wang
is
demanding
damages
and
a
jury
trial.

In
an
emailed
statement,
a
spokesperson
for
eXp
wrote
that
the
firm’s
“agile
business
model”
will
allow
it
to
make
the
necessary
adjustments
to
succeed
in
the
changing
real
estate
environment.

“We
are
committed
to
upholding
fair
and
transparent
practices
compliant
with
law
and
we
already
have
mechanisms
and
a
plan
in
place
that
enables
buyers
and
sellers
to
negotiate
commissions,”
the
spokesperson
wrote.

Other
defendants
in
the
suit
either
did
not
return
a
request
for
comment
or
did
not
wish
to
comment.

Related