FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing
HomeSmart litigation history
What HomeSmart disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document. Item 3 lists the material legal actions a franchisor must report; Item 4 covers bankruptcy. This is the franchisor's own disclosure, not a court record, and not legal advice.
Items 3 (litigation) & 4 (bankruptcy) at a glance
What the filing discloses
- Cases disclosed
- 4
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases
- $4.7M
- As stated in Item 3
- Bankruptcy (Item 4)
- None
- Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer
- Filing year
- 2026
- Disclosures cover the prior ten years
Extracted from the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document
Item 3: litigation
Washington State AOD (2020) re no-poaching provisions; Umpa v. HomeSmart et al. (W.D. Mo., filed 2023, antitrust class action re MLS commissions, settled 2024 for $4.7M plus practice changes); Boykin v. HomeSmart et al. (D. Nev., 2024, similar antitrust claims, resolved via Umpa settlement); Zawislak/D'Acquisto v. HomeSmart et al. (N.D. Ill., antitrust claims re inflated home prices, pending, HomeSmart denies wrongdoing).
Item 3 (litigation) · 4 matters disclosed
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Concluded (3)
Angela Boykin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HomeSmart International, LLC et al.
settledBrought by a third party · filed 2024-03-04 · United States District Court for the District of Nevada
“… On March 4, 2024, HomeSmart International, LLC was named as a Defendant in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.”Page 9 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The matter was resolved as part of the settlement referenced above under the Daniel Umpa lawsuit. Dawid Zawislak and Michael D’Acquisto, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. HomeSmart International, LLC et. al.”
Daniel Umpa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HomeSmart International, LLC et. al.
settledBrought by a third party · filed 2023-12-27 · United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
“… On December 27, 2023, HomeSmart International, LLC was named as a Defendant in a lawsuit filed”Page 8 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The matter was settled and the lawsuit was dismissed on December 16, 2024, after approval of a settlement agreement by the court.” (page 9)
In Re: Franchise No Poaching Provisions (HomeSmart International, LLC)
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · filed 2020-01-24 · State of Washington · 20-2-02174-1 SEA
“… No. 20-2-02174-1 SEA. On January 24, 2020, in an effort to avoid protracted and expensive litigation, HomeSmart International, LLC, entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance (“AOD”) with the State of Washington.”Page 8 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Status not stated in the filing (1)
Dawid Zawislak and Michael D’Acquisto, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. HomeSmart International, LLC et. al.
Brought by a third party · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
“Dawid Zawislak and Michael D’Acquisto, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. HomeSmart International, LLC et. al.”Page 9 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Disclosure signals that moved the score
How this shows up in the verdict
- Significant litigation portfolio including tortious interference, class action MLS disputes, TCPA violations, and no-poaching Assurance of Discontinuance—indicating operational and compliance risks
The verdict grade is FranchiseVerdict's editorial assessment across SBA loan performance, unit growth, revenue and disclosure signals. It is not investment advice.
Before you weigh a lawsuit
How to read Item 3
A franchisor must disclose pending actions and any material civil action involving the franchise relationship, plus convictions or civil judgments for fraud, unfair or deceptive practices, or franchise-law violations, going back ten years. A case the franchisor brought against a franchisee counts too. Item 3 does not include every dispute: settled claims below the materiality line and matters resolved in private arbitration can be absent.
Questions worth asking current and former franchisees, using the contact list in Item 20:
- Were you, or anyone you know in the system, party to a dispute with the franchisor?
- Was it resolved by settlement, arbitration or a court, and on what terms?
- Has the number of disputes gone up or down since you signed?