USA – ARIZONA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dan Goldfine, John Desmond, Patrick Masterson and Alexis Taitel, Dickinson Wright PLLC
revenue management software. Unlike United States v RealPage and Gibson, et al. v Cendyn Group , this proceeding has passed the pleading stage and is in the midst of discovery. Accordingly, In re RealPage will give Arizona courts guidance in addressing algorithm- based antitrust claims at the summary-judgment stage. Antitrust litigation in the real estate sector Following recent national trends, the intersection between real estate and technology continues to be a hotbed of antitrust litigation in Arizona. At the tail end of 2023, Zillow Group, Inc. and ShowingTime.com, LLC – which Zillow acquired in 2021 – sued two Mul - tiple Listings Services (MLS) and an MLS consortium under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, in the US District Court for the District of Arizona. ( Zillow Grp., Inc. and ShowingTime.com, LLC v Ariz. Reg’l Multiple Listing Serv., Inc.Multiple Listing Serv., Inc. and MLS Aligned, LLC (D. Ariz., Case No. 2:23-cv-02701-MTL) .) The crux of the lawsuit was the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendants were attempting to monopolise the market for real-estate-showing-management ser - vices and conspiring to exclude ShowingTime, their competitor, from certain geographic markets. Alleging that the defendants conspired to remove access to the ShowingTime.com platform from their members’ online portals, the plaintiffs urged that the defend - ants’ actions prevented real estate agents from using ShowingTime to schedule and manage real estate listings. In February 2024, the defendants all moved to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim. The MLS consor - tium argued that both claims against it failed because plaintiffs did not allege an agreement amongst the defendants to exclude ShowingTime from any MLS member portal. In a separate motion to dismiss, the two MLS entities urged in part that neither Zillow nor ShowingTime had standing to sue because they failed to allege an antitrust injury. Identifying that the plain - tiffs’ true grievance was with genuine competition in the market – rather than unlawful anticompetitive practices – defendants accused plaintiffs of weapon - ising antitrust laws to halt legal competition. Both motions to dismiss were fully briefed. But the court never had the chance to address them, as the
parties notified the court of an impending settlement in the days before the motions were set for oral argu - ment. On 2 August 2024, the plaintiffs voluntarily dis - missed the action. Because the case was resolved without substantive analysis from the court, it leaves the broader legal community wondering how the Ari - zona district court would come out on these inter - sectional issues. But with a fast growing population and booming construction industry, Arizona is sure to be presented with another opportunity to address antitrust laws in the real estate context before long. Antitrust litigation in the municipal services sector Earlier this year, in a memorandum decision accepting special-action jurisdiction, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed anti-competitive behav - iour in the context of municipal garbage collection, upholding the lower court’s denial of summary judg - ment to Defendant Colorado City on multiple grounds. ( Town of Colorado City v Centennial Park Disposal, Inc., No. 1 CA-SA 25-0035 (Arizona Court of Appeals, 6 May 2025). ) In September 2022, Centennial Park Disposal, Inc. (“Centennial”) – a private garbage-collection com - pany – sued Colorado City, Arizona (the “City”), for compelling municipal water-service customers to pay for municipal garbage-collection services. The lower court construed Centennial’s allegations in its second-amended complaint to include that the City had engaged in anti-competitive conduct in violation of ARS Section 9-516 and Arizona’s Uniform State Antitrust Act, ARS Sections 44-1401 to -1416. The City ultimately moved for summary judgment based on the affirmative defences of limitations and immu - nity, which the lower court rejected. On appeal, the Arizona appellate court concluded that the lower court had properly denied summary judg - ment to the City on limitations and immunity grounds. The Court of Appeals examined immunity under two lenses: (i) ARS Section 12-820.01, and (ii) state-action exemption to antitrust liability, which is “a federal doc - trine premised on federalism and state sovereignty.” ( Town of Colorado City, No. 1 CA-SA 25-0035 at ¶ 17 (citing Town of Hallie v City of Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34, 38 (1985)). ) Under ARS Section 12-820.01, the Court of Appeals found that the City was not acting
294 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook