FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
Keller Williams litigation history
What Keller Williams disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2025 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
- 32
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases
- $70.0M
- As stated in Item 3
- Bankruptcy (Item 4)
- None
- Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer
- Filing year
- 2025
- Disclosures cover the prior ten years
Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document
Item 3: litigation
Multiple pending antitrust class actions (Moehrl/Sitzer/buyer-side) related to MLS buyer broker commission conspiracies; several TCPA class actions; individual business disputes (Davis, Basinski, Morris, Fetick, Coffey, Montalbano); global $70M settlement of Moehrl/Sitzer/Umpa cases achieved in 2024; several concluded cases settled including $40M TCPA class settlement (DeShay)
Item 3 (litigation) · 32 matters disclosed · 15 pending listed
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (15)
Dalton K. Jensen, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The National Association of Realtors, et al.
pendingBrought by a third party · filed 2024-02-09 · United States District Court of Utah · 24-cv-109
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on February 9, 2024, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiff home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On February 1, 2024, we entered a nationwide class settlement under which the definition of the settlement class and scope of the release would resolve the claims alleged in this case.” (page 22)
Willsim Latham, LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MetroList Services, et al.
pendingBrought by a third party · filed 2024-01-18 · United States District Court Central District of California · 24-cv-67
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on January 18, 2024, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiff home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on the MetroList Multiple Listing Service site in California”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Christina Grace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Association of Realtors, et al.
pendingBrought by a third party · filed 2023-12-08 · United States District Court Northern District of California, San Francisco Division · 3:23-cv-06352
“Plaintiff filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on December 8, 2023, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiffs home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on a Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) sites within California”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On February 1, 2024, we entered a nationwide class settlement under which the definition of the settlement class and scope of the release would resolve the claims alleged in this case.”
Colleen L. Basinski, Bart S. Basinski, and Baz Investment Group, Inc. v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Gary Keller, Marc King, Dan Holt, and Colette Ching
pendingfiled 2023-03-09 · District Court of Travis County, Texas; removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas · D-1-GN-23-001314 (removed: 1:23-cv-00299-RP)
“Plaintiffs filed this action on March 9, 2023, alleging claims against the defendants for tortious interference. Keller Williams Realty, Inc. removed the case on March 17, 2023, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00299-RP.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The Parties are discussing potential arbitrators, but no demand in arbitration has been filed. Defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the matter.”
Daniel Umpa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The National Association of Realtors, et al.
pendingBrought by a third party · filed 2023-12-27 · Western District of Missouri · 23-cv-945
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on December 27, 2023, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiff home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on all Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) sites in the United States”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On February 1, 2024, we entered a nationwide class settlement that will settle the claims brought in this case, the Moehrl case (discussed above), and the Sitzer case (discussed above).”
John Davis v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc.; Gary Keller; Josh Team; Business MAPS, Ltd; and Business MAPS Management, LLC.
pendingfiled 2023-08-29 · United States District Court Western District of Texas, Austin Division · 1:23-cv-1017
“On August 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Second Litigation against Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (“KWRI”); Gary”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On August 12, 2024, the Court compelled the Second Litigation to arbitration. The Court further ordered the Second Litigation stayed and administratively closed.” (page 20)
Julie Martin, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc., et al.
pendingBrought by a third party · filed 2023-12-14 · United States District Court Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division · 23-cv-1104
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on December 14, 2023, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiff home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on certain Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) sites within Texas”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Paul Morris v. Gary Keller; Tom Lamphere; Jan Richey; CalTex Millennium, LLC; and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
pendingfiled 2023-09-11 · Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles · 23STCV21862
“Plaintiff filed the Litigation on September 11, 2023, alleging a claim for intentional tort against Defendants and a claim for unjust enrichment against Keller Williams Realty, Inc.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s claims to arbitration and the court granted the motion. No demand in arbitration has been filed. Defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the matter.”
QJ Team, LLC and Five Points Holdings, LLC, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc., et al.
pendingBrought by a third party · filed 2023-11-13 · United States District Court Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division · 4:23-CV-01013
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on November 13, 2023, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiffs home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On February 1, 2024, we entered a nationwide class settlement under which the definition of the settlement class and scope of the release would resolve the claims alleged in this case.” (page 21)
Shauntell Burton, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. National Association of Realtors, Keller Williams, LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
pendingBrought by a third party · filed 2023-11-13 · United States District Court for the District of South Carolina · 7:23-CV-056660-JD
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on November 13, 2023, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiffs home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) sites within South Carolina”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On February 1, 2024, we entered a nationwide class settlement under which the definition of the settlement class and scope of the release would resolve the claims alleged in this case.”
John Davis v. Inga Dow, Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Gary Keller, and Josh Team
pendingfiled 2022-10-27 · United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division · 4:22 cv-00970-O
“Plaintiff filed the Litigation on October 27, 2022, alleging claims against Inga Dow, for among other things, abuse of process for filing the above-described lawsuit, against Keller Williams Realty, Inc.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Plaintiff has filed a demand for arbitration, and an arbitrator has been appointed. Defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the matter.”
Judah Leeder individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
pendingBrought by a third party · filed 2021-01-27 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 1:21-cv-00430
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on January 27, 2021, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiff home buyers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate and/or inflated home prices when listing a property on a Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) site”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On February 20, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the Sherman Act claim but permitted the plaintiffs to pursue various state antitrust and consumer protection statute claims. We will continue to defend ourselves in this matter.”
Gary Bauman, Mary Jane Bauman, and Jennifer Nosalek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. MLS Property Information Network, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
pendingBrought by a third party · filed 2020-12-17 · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1:20-cv-12244
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on December 17, 2020, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiff home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on a Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) site, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On February 1, 2024, we entered a nationwide class settlement under which the definition of the settlement class and scope of the release would resolve the claims alleged in this case.” (page 19)
Joshua Sitzer and Amy Winger, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
pendingBrought by a third party · filed 2020-03-30 · United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri · 4:19-cv-00332-SRB
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on March 30, 2020, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiff home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on four Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) sites within Missouri, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On October 31, 2023, a jury issued a verdict against all Defendants in the case awarding the plaintiffs damages in the amount of $1,786,310,872 (which under antitrust law may be increased to $5,358,932,616) to be reduced by existing and possible future settlements entered into between the Plaintiffs and specific Defendants.”
Christopher Moehrl, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
pendingBrought by a third party · filed 2019-03-06 · United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois · 19-cv-1610
“Plaintiff filed this Class Action Complaint on March 6, 2019, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require plaintiff home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on twenty Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) sites, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On February 1, 2024, we entered a nationwide class settlement to settle the claims brought in this case, the Sitzer case (discussed below), and the Umpa case (discussed below).” (page 18)
This list shows 15 of the 32 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.
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
- Multiple active class action antitrust lawsuits (Moehrl, Sitzer) alleging commission inflation conspiracy create existential legal and reputational risk to the franchise system
- System declining 0.5% YoY with 773 units suggests erosion of franchisee confidence and potential accelerating departures if litigation outcomes are unfavorable
- 5-year term with no renewal guarantees combined with litigation risk creates uncertainty in franchisee's ability to recoup initial investment
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?