Zea
runs

www.snapflatfee.com,
a
brokerage
that
charges
sellers
a
listing
fee
in
exchange
for
limited
services.
Zea’s
firm
syndicates
listings
data
to
the
MLS
data
feeds
and
forwards
all
buyer
leads
“regardless
of
their
origin”
directly
to
the
seller.
According
to
Zea,
buyer’s
agents
associated
with
the
defendants

steer
clients
away
from
properties
that
offered
a
reduced
or
non-existent
buyer’s
agent
commission. 

The
first
motion
to
dismiss
was
jointly
filed
by
all
of
the
defendants,
which
include
NAR,

Beaches
MLS;

Broward,
Palm
Beaches
&
St.
Lucie
Realtors;

Miami
Association
of
Realtors;

Orlando
Regional
Realtor
Association;

Florida
Gulf
Coast
MLS;

Stellar
MLS;

Space
Coast
MLS
and

Space
Coast
Association
of
Realtors;
RealMLS;

Northeast
Florida
Association
of
Realtors;

Central
Panhandle
Association
of
Realtors;

Connecticut
Association
of
Realtors;

Smart
MLS;

West
and
Southeast
Realtors
of
the
Valley
and

Midwest
Real
Estate
Data.

Zea
fails
to
state
a
claim
say
defendants

In
this
motion
they
argue
that
Zea’s
suit
should
be
dismissed
as
he
fails
to
state
a
claim
in
his
complaint.
According
to
the
defendants,
Zea’s
suit
should
be
dismissed
because
he
has
not
shown
evidence
of
a
personal
injury,
or
any
agreement
or
conspiracy
among
the
defendants,
and
he
has
not
defined
any
anticompetitive
harm.
They
also
argue
that
he
is
trying
to
relitigate
issues
that
were
already
addressed
in
the

Sitzer/Burnett
and
other

commission
lawsuits.
Additionally,
the
filing
highlights
that
Zea
already
objected
to
the

final
approval
of
the
Sitzer/Burnett
settlement
only
to
have
the
court
reject
his
challenge. 

In
addition
to
this
motion,
the
defendants
located
outside
of
Florida
also
filed
a
separate
motion
to
dismiss
for
lack
of
personal
jurisdiction
filed.
They
argue
that
the
Florida
court
does
not
have
jurisdiction
over
them.
Additionally,
Smart
MLS,
which
is
located
in
Connecticut,
claims
that
it
has
a
contract
with
the
plaintiff
requiring
disputes
about
its
MLS
participation
to
be
litigated
in
Connecticut. 

The
plaintiff’s
response
to
these
two
motions
are
due
by
October
22,
2025. 

Zea
claims
defendants
need
to
follow
their
own
rules

Alongside
their
motions
to
dismiss,
the
defendants
also
responded
to
Zea’s
request
for
a
preliminary
injunction.
Filed
in
late
August,
Zea’s
motion
asks
the
court
to
make
the
defendants
follow
their
own
rules
—
meant
to
protect
consumers,
ensure
transparency
and
support
competition.

He
argues
that,
despite
changes
from
the

commission
lawsuit
settlement,
MLSs
still
let
users
filter
or
hide
listings
based
on
brokerage,
agent
or
buyer
broker
pay.
Zea
also
claims
MLSs
are
concealing
listing
broker
contact
details
on
public
sites
and
not
enforcing
the
required

buyer
broker
agreement
rule.

In
their
response,
the
defendants
argued
that
an
order
compelling
blanket
“enforcement”
of
MLS
and
NAR
rules
would
be
vague
and
impossible
to
police.
They
also
claim
that
they
already
enforce
MLS
and
their
rules
through
the
normal
channel
of
individualized
complaints
and
investigations.
Additionally,
they
claim
that
the
evidence
Zea
has
presented
does
not
show
systematic
non‑enforcement
of
policies
or
a
conspiracy
to
do
so. 

The
plaintiff
has
until
Oct.
15,
2025,
to
respond
to
the
defendants’
opposition.