A federal jury made a groundbreaking decision this week, finding that the National Association of Realtors and several large brokerages conspired to artificially inflate agent commissions. The jury awarded plaintiffs nearly $1.8 billion in damages, leaving the home-buying industry in a state of uncertainty. Additional antitrust lawsuits are awaiting trial, and federal regulators are also expected to intervene.

This verdict has significant implications for the home brokerage industry, which generates approximately $100 billion in commissions annually. Experts believe that the current system, in which sellers pay fees for both their own agent and the buyers’ agent, will no longer be sustainable. Typically, commissions range from 5 to 6 percent, split between the two brokers, and are enforced by the National Association of Realtors. If sellers refuse to agree to these terms, their listings are not shown on the multiple listing services that facilitate most home sales.

According to experts, potential changes in the industry include making commission sharing optional, negotiating for sellers to cover buyers’ broker costs, changing home-lending rules to enable mortgages to directly finance buyers’ agent fees, offering flat fees or hourly rates for buyers’ agents, or completely eliminating the need for buyers’ agents, similar to practices in other countries.

The brokerage industry may experience a contraction, with up to 30 percent of commissions disappearing, according to analysts. Start-ups are experimenting with different business models, such as promoting house listings instead of selling buyer leads to agents or listing homes directly as independent iBuyers. Shares of these companies have risen following the court ruling against the Realtors.

A decline in the number of agents could have severe consequences for the National Association of Realtors, which collects significant membership fees. The association has stated that it will appeal the court’s decision.

In a separate report, a century-old trade rule called de minimis is posing problems for U.S. retailers. The rule exempts packages worth less than $800 from duties and fees when shipped into the U.S. Critics argue that online retailers like Shein and Temu, which ship merchandise directly from overseas to customers, benefit from this rule. Unlike products made overseas and stored in U.S. warehouses before shipment, which are less likely to fall under the threshold, packages from Shein and Temu often do not reach the $800 mark. U.S. retailers argue that this puts U.S. jobs at risk and want the rule to be changed.

Debate exists regarding how to approach changes to de minimis. Some groups advocate for expanding the rule to apply to U.S. distribution centers in foreign trade zones, while others propose limiting de minimis to fewer retailers or even excluding specific countries from using the exception. The goal is to create a level playing field and avoid incentivizing the relocation of distribution centers offshore.

In the book “Ours Was the Shining Future,” David Leonhardt examines the decline of the American dream and argues for progressive policies aimed at improving the economic prospects of the working class. He highlights the stagnation of wages since the early 1980s and attributes it partly to global competition. However, he also points out that the U.S. made decisions that harmed its economic prospects, such as falling behind in education, infrastructure, and government-funded scientific research, as well as increased income inequality.

Leonhardt advocates for stronger labor unions, which aligns with recent discussions and actions focused on labor rights.