Homie Technology, Inc. v. National Association of Realtors.
No. 25-4101. 8/11/2026. D.Utah. Judge Tymkovich. Real Estate Brokerage Services—Lower Brokerage Commissions—Sherman Antitrust Act—Utah Antitrust Act—Statute of Limitations—Continuing Conspiracy Exception.
August 11, 2026
Homie Technology, Inc. (Homie) provides residential real estate brokerage services in Utah. It participates in the Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service, Inc. (WFRMLS), which is affiliated with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and owned by local NAR associations. Homie seeks to reduce real estate transaction costs through lower brokerage commissions. As a selling broker, it charges either a flat fee or a commission lower than the typical 5–6%. Homie would also offer buying agents a lower commission than that offered by traditional brokers and would share a portion of the buying-agent commission offered by a seller with its buyer-clients. After several successful years in business, Homie began losing clients and had to change its business practices and downsize. Homie claims that its business was detrimentally affected by a practice known as “steering,” whereby local brokers refused to show Homie-listed properties to potential buyers or to show their listed properties to Homie-affiliated buyers. Homie alleges that local brokers also left comments on its MLS listings conveying their refusal to show Homie properties to clients unless Homie increased the buying-agent commission. It further claims that local brokers and agents used Facebook groups to coordinate boycotts of Homie’s listings. In 2024, Homie sued the NAR and several of its competitor brokerages (brokerage defendants) for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Utah Antitrust Act and for tortious interference with economic relations. Homie alleged that the NAR rules governing MLS practices reflected an anticompetitive conspiracy designed to exclude lower-cost brokerages from the real estate market. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court found that Homie’s claims were untimely under the applicable statute of limitations and that Homie had not shown a continuing conspiracy that would toll the limitations period and, alternatively, that Homie had not adequately alleged an antitrust injury. The court also found that Homie had not alleged that any defendant intentionally interfered with its current or future business relationships. The court granted the motion in full.
On appeal, Homie argued that it adequately alleged a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Utah Antitrust Act, so the district court erred by dismissing those claims. Federal and Utah law impose a four-year limitations period on Homie’s antitrust claims. It is undisputed that Homie’s cause of action based on the NAR rules accrued between 2015 and 2019. Because Homie did not file suit until 2024, its claims are barred unless Homie can establish a basis for tolling or another exception to the statute of limitations. Homie maintained that the continuing conspiracy exception applies, reasoning that the NAR rules constitute a conspiracy by all NAR members to keep out new real estate market participants who want to compete through lower brokerage fees, and the boycott against Homie continued that conspiracy through steering acts within the limitations period. However, the continuing conspiracy exception does not apply because Homie has not plausibly alleged that the challenged NAR rules evidence an agreement by NAR members to achieve the same exclusionary objective. For example, the allegation that the rules are themselves exclusionary is implausible given Homie’s admitted initial success in the Utah real estate market, during which time the challenged rules were in effect. And while the alleged boycott by unidentified individual NAR members might be an antitrust violation itself, it cannot further a different conspiracy that does not exist. Lacking a continuing conspiracy to toll the limitations period, Homie’s antitrust claims are time barred.
Homie also contended that NAR’s annual reaffirmation and ongoing enforcement of the challenged rules were distinct acts within the limitations period. However, as discussed above, Homie did not plausibly allege that the rules are a conspiracy to exclude competitors, so renewing and enforcing rules cannot continue a conspiracy that does not exist.
The judgment was affirmed.