FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Realty ONE Group litigation history

What Realty ONE Group 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: 3; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $5K; 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

Lublin Corporation filed complaint against Realty One Group (defendant) and Janet Tarity in March 2020 alleging violation of Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Settled November 2022 with Realty One Group and RMX defendants jointly paying $25,000 (franchisor paid $5,000). Washington Attorney General investigation (August 2019) into no-poaching provisions in franchise agreements resulted in Assurance of Discontinuance signed December 16, 2019, requiring removal of no-poach provisions from future and existing franchise agreements.

Item 3 (litigation) · 3 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (2)

Lublin Corporation, doing business as Century 21 Advantage Gold vs. Janet Tarity, Realty One Group Affiliates, Inc., Realty One Group Unlimited and RMX Property Management, LLC
settled
filed 2020-03-09 · Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (Commerce Program) · January Term 2020, No. 02792
“On March 9, 2020, Lublin Corporation, doing business as Century 21 Advantage Gold (“Lublin”), filed a Complaint with the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (Lublin Corporation, doing business as Century 21 Advantage Gold vs. Janet Tarity, Realty One Group Affiliates, Inc., Realty One Group Unlimited and RMX Property Management, LLC”Page 9 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “This matter was resolved by a settlement agreement executed in November 2022, and the case was dismissed. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, we and the RMX defendants jointly paid sum of $25,000 to Lublin (out of which we paid $5,000). Defendant Tarity paid $65,000 to Lublin.”
Washington Attorney General investigation into no-poaching provisions in Realty One Group Affiliates franchise agreements, resolved by an Assurance of Discontinuance (no case caption is printed)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 2019 · Washington State Attorney General (Antitrust Division); the Superior Court of King County, Washington approved and ordered entry of the AOD
“In August 2019, the Washington Attorney General initiated an investigation into language in our franchise agreements that restricted a franchisee’s ability to solicit or hire workers from Realty One Group Affiliates, Inc. (no-poaching provision). On December 16, 2019, we signed an Assurance of Discontinuance”Page 9 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On December 17, 2019, the Superior Court of King County, Washington approved and ordered entry of the AOD, and the matter was concluded.”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (1)

Multidistrict class-action litigation against the National Association of Realtors and real estate brokerages including ROG (five titled actions listed)
settled
ROG, described as "ROGA's affiliated entity"; the filing adds "We were not named as a defendant." · filed 2023 · U.S. District Courts for the Western District of Missouri, the District of Arizona, the District of Nevada and the Northern District of California
“In December 2023, ROGA’s affiliated entity, ROG was named (along with other real estate brokerages and the National Association of Realtors) in the multidistrict class-action litigation alleging violations of federal anti-trust law”Page 10 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The total monetary settlement amount to be paid by ROG under a settlement agreement agreement dated April 23, 2024 (“Settlement Agreement”) is $5,000,000, payable as follows: (i) $1,250,000 has been paid,”
Within this matter, as the filing narrates it · 5 proceedings
- Boykin v. National Association of Realtors, et al.
  concluded
  names an affiliate · ROG · U.S. District Court, District of Nevada · 2:24-cv-00340
  “(iv) Boykin v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 2:24- cv-00340)”Page 10 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
- Gibson v. National Association of Realtors, et al.
  concluded
  names an affiliate · ROG · U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri · 4:23-cv-00788-SRB
  “(i) Gibson v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Case No. 4:23-cv-00788-SRB”Page 10 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
- Grace v. Bay Area Real Estate Information Services, Inc., et al.
  concluded
  names an affiliate · ROG · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · 4:23-cv-06352
  “(v) Grace v. Bay Area Real Estate Information Services, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 4:23-cv-06352”Page 10 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
- Masiello v. Arizona Association of Realtors, et al.
  concluded
  names an affiliate · ROG · U.S. District Court, District of Arizona · 2:24-cv-00045
  “(iii) Masiello v. Arizona Association of Realtors, et al., (U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, Case No. 2:24-cv-00045”Page 10 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
- Umpa v. National Association of Realtors, et al.
  concluded
  names an affiliate · ROG · U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri · 4:23-cv-00945-FJG
  “(ii) Umpa v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Case No. 4:23-cv-00945-FJG”Page 10 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.

5 of the proceedings above are indented under the matter they belong to because the filing narrates them inside it — an appeal, a consolidated case, a related arbitration. Each carries its own quote and page. They are counted with their matter, not as extra matters, so this list and the 3 Item 3 discloses agree.

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.

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?

Back to the Realty ONE Group verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls