Compass, Redfin and Seven Other Brokerages Just Bought Their Way Out of the Commission Lawsuits for $110 Million. Buyer's Agent Fees Are Higher Than the Day the New Rules Started.

The lawsuits that were supposed to break the 6% commission are over. The 6% commission is still here.

On Tuesday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the $110.6 million in settlements that Compass, Redfin, Douglas Elliman, The Real Brokerage and five other national brokerages paid to exit the Gibson commission case. Four objectors had spent almost two years trying to unwind the deals. The panel disposed of all of them in an 18-page per curiam opinion that mostly points back to its August 19 decision upholding the larger NAR and HomeServices settlements.

That makes the total collected across every settlement in the Burnett and Gibson cases $1,017,687,754. The court's number, not mine.

Here is the part the press releases will skip. The new rules those settlements forced on the industry took effect on August 17, 2024. Redfin's own data shows the average buyer's agent commission bottomed at 2.36% that quarter and sat at 2.42% a year later. A February 2026 survey of 533 agents put the national average at 5.70% total, higher than the 5.50% the same survey found in 2021, before a single one of these cases went to trial.

A billion dollars changed hands. The fee did not move.

What the court actually decided Tuesday

The Gibson case was the nationwide follow-on to Burnett, the Missouri trial where a jury found NAR and four big franchisors liable for a conspiracy to inflate buyer-broker commissions and awarded $1.785 billion before trebling. Nine brokerages that were named in Gibson but not in Burnett settled in 2024 rather than face their own trial. Per the district court's October 2024 approval:

Class counsel asked for one-third of that pot, roughly $36.8 million, matching the $333 million one-third fee the Eighth Circuit already blessed in Burnett.

The objectors' arguments were the same ones that lost two weeks ago: that home buyers' claims were released without anyone representing buyers, that the New York REBNY claims were a different conspiracy, that the money was inadequate, and that Judge Stephen Bough violated due process by making objectors show up in Kansas City in person two days before Thanksgiving or forfeit their objections. The panel's answer on the buyer question is the one that matters going forward. Buying one home and selling another are "two distinct transactions," the objector argued. The court said the claims "nevertheless arise from the same nucleus: the conspiratorial MLS rules that drove up the prices for all home transactions." Buyers are released. That door is shut.

The court also noted how little resistance the settlements drew from the people they cover. Out of a class of roughly 2.7 million home sellers, 46 opted out of the Gibson settlements and 11 objected. In Burnett, 39 opted out and 36 objected while over two million claims were filed.

The Numbers: what a home seller is actually going to get

Nobody has published a payout figure, and the settlement administrator's site still says only that the May 9, 2025 claims deadline has passed. So do the arithmetic yourself.

Start with $1.018 billion. Take out one-third for attorneys, about $339 million. Take out notice, administration and the two special masters Judge Bough appointed in July at $950 an hour to audit the distribution. Call it $650 million net, and I am being generous. Spread that across two-million-plus claims, weighted by the commission each seller paid, and the average check lands in the low hundreds of dollars. A seller who paid $18,000 in commission on a $300,000 sale in 2019 is getting back something closer to a nice dinner than a refund.

That is not a criticism of the lawyers. It is what a nationwide class of millions looks like when the defendants' ability to pay caps the fund, which the Eighth Circuit said outright: "Concerns about Defendants' ability to pay also motivated negotiations."

The relief that was supposed to be worth more than the checks is the practice changes. So look at what they did.

Buyer's agent commissions, per Redfin's closed-sale data:

• Q3 2024, the quarter the rules took effect: 2.36%
• Q3 2025: 2.42%
• Homes under $500,000: 2.52%, the highest reading since Q3 2023
• Homes over $1 million: 2.22%

Agents' own read, from the Cotality–ResiClub survey of 213 agents this spring: two-thirds said there has been no meaningful change in their commission levels since the settlement. Just 34% said the buyer side is where they feel the most pressure.

The sellers who need relief most are getting the least. The fee is highest on the cheapest homes, which is exactly where a 2.5% buyer-side fee is the largest share of the seller's equity. The rules made the fee visible and negotiable. They did not make anyone negotiate it.

Who this helps and who it hurts

The nine brokerages got the thing they paid for: legal peace and a release that reaches buyers and franchisees. Compass paid $57.5 million to close out exposure on a claim where the trial verdict was $1.785 billion before trebling. As a trade, that is one of the better ones in real estate this decade.

Listing agents came out of this almost untouched. The listing side of the fee, 2.88% per the Clever survey, is up from 2.72% in 2021. The buyer agreement rule pushed the friction onto the other side of the table.

Buyer's agents are the ones who now have to justify a number in writing, before the first showing, and cannot collect more than that number from any source. The DOJ told the court in a statement of interest that this exact provision "may harm buyers and limit how brokers compete for clients." The Eighth Circuit acknowledged the DOJ's concern and moved on. So the written agreement is permanent. The agents who are losing here are the ones who still treat it as paperwork instead of a sales conversation.

Home sellers got a small check, eventually, and a real but unused lever: they are no longer obligated to offer the buyer's agent anything, and the offer cannot be advertised on the MLS. Most are still paying it anyway because their listing agent tells them the house will not show otherwise. On the data above, that advice is winning.

Home buyers got nothing from the fund and lost the right to sue over it. What they gained is the disclosure: a document that states the fee, states that it is negotiable, and caps it. That is worth something only if you read it.

Common mistakes people are making with this news

• Waiting for a payout date. There isn't one yet. Tuesday's ruling starts a 14-day window for a rehearing petition and a 90-day window for a Supreme Court petition. Distribution follows finality, not headlines.
• Trying to file a claim now. The deadline for these settlements was May 9, 2025. A later batch of nine smaller brokerages ($42 million, Howard Hanna, Raveis, EXIT and others) closed December 30, 2025. If you missed both, the only open door is the remaining Gibson defendants, Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Crye-Leike, whose trial is set for May 1, 2028.
• Assuming "the settlement lowered commissions." It lowered them for one quarter. Then they came back.
• Signing a buyer agreement without reading the fee line. The cap in that document is the only piece of this billion-dollar case that will ever touch your closing statement.

How agents should respond

Stop waiting for the rules to change back. They will not. Two appellate opinions in two weeks affirmed every piece of the practice changes, and the panel rejected the argument that "post-implementation market data shows the practice changes have failed." The buyer agreement is the business now.

If you work the buy side, the written agreement is your pitch, not your compliance form. The agents whose commissions held did not hold them by hiding the number. They held them by putting a fee on paper and explaining, in specifics, what the buyer gets for it. If you cannot make that case in writing, you are the agent the DOJ was worried about.

If you list, understand that you are the one who decides whether the seller offers a buyer-side concession, and the seller now has to approve it in advance. Bring data to that conversation, not a rule of thumb. Days on market and price reductions in that ZIP code tell the seller whether a concession is buying anything.

How homeowners should respond

If you are selling: the buyer's agent fee is a cost you can set, including at zero, and it lives in your listing agreement, not on the MLS. Ask your agent for the local numbers before you agree to any number. In a market where houses sit for 60 days and get cut twice, a concession may be the cheapest thing you can offer. In a market that clears in a week, it is a gift.

If you are buying: you will sign a fee agreement before your first tour. Read the number. It is a percentage of a price you do not know yet, so find out what the house is actually worth before you agree to a percent of it. Then remember the cap works in your favor. The agent cannot collect more than that number from anyone.

If you sold between 2014 and 2024 and filed a claim: keep your address current with the administrator at RealEstateCommissionLitigation.com and expect a small check on a long fuse. This is reporting, not legal advice. If you think you have a claim outside these classes, talk to a lawyer.

Where I Land

The commission lawsuits were sold to the public as the thing that would break the 5% to 6% fee. They broke the rule that enforced it and left the fee standing, because the fee was never held up by the rule alone. It was held up by the fact that neither buyers nor sellers know what a house is worth or what the market around it is doing, so they take the number the agent gives them. A billion dollars did not fix that, and a court cannot.

The fee compression that these cases promised will come, but it will come from the bottom of the market, from buyers and sellers on sub-$500,000 homes who walk into the fee conversation already knowing the comps. I would not pay a percentage for representation on either side of a deal without knowing the value first, and I would not offer a concession as a seller without knowing how long my neighbors' houses sat. That is where the leverage is now. It is not in Kansas City.

How to Use PropGPT for This

The one asset the settlements handed every consumer is a negotiable, written fee. The leverage in that negotiation is knowing the number underneath it. Three prompts that do that work:

"Pull comps for [address] and give me a value range with the sale dates and days on market for each comp."

Do this before you sign a buyer agreement, so you are agreeing to a percentage of a price you can defend, not a percentage of whatever the listing says.

"Show me active listings in [ZIP] that have been on the market more than 60 days and have had a price reduction."

If you are selling, this tells you whether a buyer-side concession is buying showings or just giving money away. If you are buying, it tells you which sellers are the ones to ask for one.

"Give me a market snapshot for [city or ZIP]: inventory, median days on market, and how sale prices are tracking to list."

The fastest way to settle the "you have to offer the buyer's agent something" argument with your own agent is to know whether the market actually agrees.

The Bottom Line

As of Tuesday, every settlement in the Burnett and Gibson cases has survived appeal. The brokerages are out. The lawyers will take a third. The class of 2.7 million sellers will split what is left after a rehearing window and a possible Supreme Court petition run out. The rules that came out of it are permanent, and in two years they have moved the average buyer's agent fee by a few hundredths of a point.

The only thing in this entire case that will change your closing statement is the number you agree to in writing. Know what the house is worth before you agree to it.

This is reporting and market commentary, not individualized legal or financial advice.