COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Lease Commitments: The Company leases office space under non-cancellable operating lease agreements. See Note 4. “Leases” to the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements for further discussion. Legal Matters: The Company is involved in litigation in the normal course of its business and otherwise. Some claims are covered by the Company’s insurance policies in excess of any applicable retention. Other claims are not covered by the Company’s insurance policies, and the Company seeks contribution toward the payment of costs and expenses from agents for non-covered claims when applicable pursuant to the Company’s agent policies. The Company believes that the resolution of ordinary course matters will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. In October 2023, individual plaintiffs filed an action on behalf of a putative national class of home sellers from October 2019 through the present in the Western District of Missouri against the National Association of Realtors (“NAR”) and certain real estate brokerage firms, including the Company, alleging anticompetitive behavior in violation of federal antitrust laws arising from NAR’s requirement that sellers’ agents for Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) listed properties offer to pay a portion of commissions received on the sale of such properties to buyers’ agents (the Gibson case). Thereafter, additional litigation was filed by other plaintiffs on behalf of putative classes of home sellers from 2019 to the present against certain real estate brokerage firms, including the Company and/or its subsidiaries, alleging anticompetitive behavior, similar to the Gibson case: (i) the March case (November 2023 – Southern District of New York) – a putative class action on behalf of home sellers in Manhattan from November 2019 through the present; (ii) the Friedman case (January 2024 – Southern District of New York) – a putative class action on behalf of home sellers in certain parts of Brooklyn from January 2020 through present; (iii) the Umpa case (December 2023 - Western District of Missouri) – putative class action on behalf of home sellers nationwide (with certain markets excluded) from December 2019 through present, which has now been consolidated into the Gibson case; (iv) the Whaley case (January 2024 - District of Nevada) – putative class action on behalf of home sellers in Nevada from January 2020 through the present, and (v) the Boykin case (February 2024 - District of Nevada) – putative class action on behalf of home sellers in Nevada from February 2020 through the present, which has now been consolidated into the Whaley case. In April 2024, the Company entered into a settlement agreement (the “Gibson Settlement Agreement”) to resolve, on a nationwide basis, the Gibson and Umpa cases (the “Lawsuits”). On April 30, 2024, the Court in the Lawsuits preliminarily approved the settlement, preliminarily certified the proposed settlement class and stayed the cases against the Company pending final approval of the Gibson Settlement Agreement. After preliminary approval, the Company obtained stays of the remaining actions against it, other than the Lutz case described below. The final approval hearing for the settlement took place on October 31, 2024, and on November 4, 2024, the Gibson Settlement Agreement received final court approval and became effective as of that date. The Gibson Settlement Agreement is currently being challenged on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The settlement resolves all claims on a nationwide basis by the plaintiffs and proposed settlement class members in the Lawsuits, which includes, but is not limited to, all claims concerning brokerage commissions by the proposed settlement class members that were asserted in other lawsuits against the Company and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Claims”), and releases the Company, its subsidiaries, and affiliated agents from all Claims. The settlement is not an admission of liability, nor does the Company concede or validate any of the claims asserted against it. Under the Gibson Settlement Agreement, the Company paid $7,750 into an escrow fund on June 12, 2024, $5,000 into an escrow fund on December 29, 2025, and agreed to pay an additional $5,000 contingent payment subject to certain financial contingencies on or before December 31, 2027. The contingent payments may be accelerated under certain circumstances. The Company recognized the full $17,750 expense associated with the Gibson Settlement Agreement during the year ended December 31, 2024. In addition, the Company agreed to make certain changes to its business practices and emphasize certain practices that have been a part of the Company’s longstanding policies and practices, including: reminding its brokerages and agents that the Company has no rule requiring agents to make or accept offers of compensation; requiring its brokerages and agents to clearly disclose to clients that commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable; prohibiting its brokerages and buyer agents from claiming buyer agent services are free; requiring its brokerages and agents to disclose to the buyer the listing broker’s offer of compensation for prospective buyers’ agents as soon as possible; prohibiting its brokerages and agents from using any technology (or manual methods) to sort listings by offers of compensation, unless requested by the client; reminding its brokerages and agents of their obligation to show properties regardless of compensation for buyers’ agents for properties that meet the buyer’s priorities; and developing training materials for its brokerages and agents that support all the practice changes outlined in the injunctive relief. While most of the industry-wide antitrust class action lawsuits launched by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of home sellers have been settled (although appeals challenging the settlements are still pending), including those against the Company, certain suits launched by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of home buyers are still pending. In November 2023, individual plaintiffs filed an action on behalf of a putative national class of home buyers from 1996 to the present in the Northern District of Illinois against certain real estate brokerage firms (the “Batton II case”), including the Company, alleging anticompetitive behavior similar to the now resolved Gibson case. In June 2024, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action against the Company without prejudice. However, on June 11, 2024, plaintiffs’ counsel from the Batton II case added the Company as a defendant in the Lutz case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 4:24-cv-10040 (KMM). This case was brought by individual plaintiffs who filed an action on behalf of a putative national class of home buyers from December 1996 through the present against certain real estate brokerage firms, alleging anticompetitive behavior in violation of federal antitrust laws, state antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as asserting an unjust enrichment claim. The allegations and claims in the Lutz case are similar to the Batton II case. As this case was brought by a putative national class of home buyers, it is not subsumed within the Gibson Settlement Agreement resolving the antitrust actions brought by home sellers against the Company, except to the extent that the class includes home buyers who also are part of the home sellers settling class referenced above that released their claims as home buyers. On July 15, 2025, all of the Lutz plaintiffs’ claims against the Company were dismissed. The federal antitrust claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims were dismissed without prejudice with 21 days to replead. The Lutz plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on August 5, 2025, which the Company moved to dismiss. On April 17, 2026, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the claim that was made under California’s Unfair Competition Law, while the Court deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss as to antitrust standing and directed the parties to file supplemental briefing, and otherwise denied the Company’s motion to dismiss in all other respects. In October 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois preliminarily approved a nationwide settlement entered by several real estate brokerage companies in Tuccori v. At World Properties, LLC, et al. (N.D. Ill.) (the “Tuccori case”), a case that consolidated certain purported class action lawsuits filed by home buyers. The settlement included an opt-in procedure pursuant to which other companies subject to similar home buyer antitrust claims could opt into the Tuccori settlement, subject to court approval. In April 2026, the Company opted into a settlement agreement (the “Tuccori Settlement Agreement”) with the purported class of home buyers in the Tuccori case, which is structured to resolve the claims asserted against the Company in, or arising from the same factual predicates as, the Lutz case. Although the Company was not a defendant in the Tuccori action, the opt‑in settlement releases the Company, its subsidiaries, and affiliated agents from the claims against it in the Lutz case. The settlement is not an admission of liability, nor does the Company concede or validate any of the claims asserted against it. The Tuccori Settlement Agreement provides for a monetary payment by the Company payable in installments over time. The Company also agreed to abide by the same business practice changes, and emphasize the same existing practices, previously agreed to by the Company in the Gibson Settlement Agreement, as described herein. The amount payable by the Company under the Tuccori Settlement Agreement was fully reserved at March 31, 2026. The Tuccori Settlement Agreement is subject to court approval. Upon such approval, the Company expects the settlement to fully resolve the claims asserted against it in Lutz. Until such time, the Lutz action remains pending against the Company. Two real estate salespersons formerly associated with the Company as independent contractors, have, together or separately, been named as defendants in multiple complaints by women accusing them of sexual assault and related wrongdoing, and in March 2026 they were convicted of criminal charges related to similar alleged conduct. On February 28, 2025, the former real estate salespersons and several other defendants, including the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer were named as defendants in one of these lawsuits, the Koste litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Plaintiffs have brought claims against the Company under the New York Gender-Motivated Violence Act and sex trafficking, negligence, and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims. The Company denies liability and is defending vigorously against these claims. The Company has filed motions to dismiss the claims against it, which will be heard by the court on June 25, 2026. On January 22, 2026, the former real estate salespersons and several other defendants, including the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer, were named as defendants in the Rodriguez litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in which Plaintiff brought claims against the Company under federal sex trafficking and Florida human trafficking laws. On April 29, 2026, the plaintiff filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the Florida human trafficking claims. The federal trafficking claims remain. The Company denies liability and is defending vigorously against these claims. On November 14, 2025, a Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint, Barbara Strougo derivatively on behalf of Douglas Elliman, Inc. vs. Howard M. Lorber, et al. (the “Strougo Litigation”), was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Chancery Court”) on behalf of the Company, as nominal defendant, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers (the “Individual Defendants”). The complaint alleged breach-of-fiduciary duty claims against the Individual Defendants. The parties to the Strougo Litigation reached an agreement to settle the Strougo Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth in a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release that was filed with the Chancery Court on February 19, 2026 (the “Strougo Settlement Agreement”). The Strougo Settlement Agreement provides for the final dismissal of the Strougo Litigation in exchange for (i) a settlement payment to the Company of $17,500, subject to reductions for attorneys’ fees and expenses, in an amount to be determined by the Chancery Court and (ii) the implementation by the Company of certain corporate-governance enhancements and reforms. Certain of the Company’s insurers have agreed to fund the settlement. The Strougo Settlement Agreement remains subject to final Chancery Court approval. The Chancery Court is scheduled to hold a settlement fairness hearing related to the Strougo Settlement Agreement on June 29, 2026. No amounts relating to the proposed settlement have been recorded as of March 31, 2026. Litigation is subject to uncertainties, and it is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending cases or that more cases, including antitrust lawsuits, could be commenced. With the commencement of any new case, the defense costs and the risks relating to the unpredictability of litigation increase. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred. Management reviews on a quarterly basis with counsel all pending litigation and evaluates the probability of a loss being incurred and whether an estimate can be made of the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the financial impact of these litigation matters. For the three months ended March 31, 2026, the Company incurred legal expenses and settlement costs totaling $7,240 (included within “General and administrative expenses,” of which $3,710 is for settlement expenses, on the condensed consolidated statement of operations). For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the Company incurred legal expenses and settlement costs totaling $4,567 (included within “General and administrative expenses,” of which $208 is for settlement expenses, on the condensed consolidated statement of operations). The Company’s condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be materially adversely affected from an unfavorable outcome in, or settlement of, any of these matters. Accounting Policy. The Company and its subsidiaries record provisions in their condensed consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when they determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated.

The Company is involved in litigation in the normal course of its business and otherwise. Some claims are covered by the Company’s insurance policies in excess of any applicable retention. Other claims are not covered by the Company’s insurance policies, and the Company seeks contribution toward the payment of costs and expenses from agents for non-covered claims when applicable pursuant to the Company’s agent policies. The Company believes that the resolution of ordinary course matters will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

In October 2023, individual plaintiffs filed an action on behalf of a putative national class of home sellers from October 2019 through the present in the Western District of Missouri against the National Association of Realtors (“NAR”) and certain real estate brokerage firms, including the Company, alleging anticompetitive behavior in violation of federal antitrust laws arising from NAR’s requirement that sellers’ agents for Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) listed properties offer to pay a portion of commissions received on the sale of such properties to buyers’ agents (the Gibson case).

Thereafter, additional litigation was filed by other plaintiffs on behalf of putative classes of home sellers from 2019 to the present against certain real estate brokerage firms, including the Company and/or its subsidiaries, alleging anticompetitive behavior, similar to the Gibson case: (i) the March case (November 2023 – Southern District of New York) – a putative class action on behalf of home sellers in Manhattan from November 2019 through the present; (ii) the Friedman case (January 2024 – Southern District of New York) – a putative class action on behalf of home sellers in certain parts of Brooklyn from January 2020 through present; (iii) the Umpa case (December 2023 - Western District of Missouri) – putative class action on behalf of home sellers nationwide (with certain markets excluded) from December 2019 through present, which has now been consolidated into the Gibson case; (iv) the Whaley case (January 2024 - District of Nevada) – putative class action on behalf of home sellers in Nevada from January 2020 through the present, and (v) the Boykin case (February 2024 - District of Nevada) –

The settlement resolves all claims on a nationwide basis by the plaintiffs and proposed settlement class members in the Lawsuits, which includes, but is not limited to, all claims concerning brokerage commissions by the proposed settlement class members that were asserted in other lawsuits against the Company and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Claims”), and releases the Company, its subsidiaries, and affiliated agents from all Claims. The settlement is not an admission of liability, nor does the Company concede or validate any of the claims asserted against it.

In addition, the Company agreed to make certain changes to its business practices and emphasize certain practices that have been a part of the Company’s longstanding policies and practices, including: reminding its brokerages and agents that the Company has no rule requiring agents to make or accept offers of compensation; requiring its brokerages and agents to clearly disclose to clients that commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable; prohibiting its brokerages and buyer agents from claiming buyer agent services are free; requiring its brokerages and agents to disclose to the buyer the listing broker’s offer of compensation for prospective buyers’ agents as soon as possible; prohibiting its brokerages and agents from using any technology (or manual methods) to sort listings by offers of compensation, unless requested by the client; reminding its brokerages and agents of their obligation to show properties regardless of compensation for buyers’ agents for properties that meet the buyer’s priorities; and developing training materials for its brokerages and agents that support all the practice changes outlined in the injunctive relief.

While most of the industry-wide antitrust class action lawsuits launched by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of home sellers have been settled (although appeals challenging the settlements are still pending), including those against the Company, certain suits launched by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of home buyers are still pending. In November 2023, individual plaintiffs filed an action on behalf of a putative national class of home buyers from 1996 to the present in the Northern District of Illinois against certain real estate brokerage firms (the “Batton II case”), including the Company, alleging anticompetitive behavior similar to the now resolved Gibson case. In June 2024, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action against the Company without prejudice. However, on June 11, 2024, plaintiffs’ counsel from the Batton II case added the Company as a defendant in the Lutz case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 4:24-cv-10040 (KMM). This case was brought by individual plaintiffs who filed an action on behalf of a putative national class of home buyers from December 1996 through the present against certain real estate brokerage firms, alleging anticompetitive behavior in violation of federal antitrust laws, state antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as asserting an unjust enrichment claim. The allegations and claims in the Lutz case are similar to the Batton II case. As this case was brought by a putative national class of home buyers, it is not subsumed within the Gibson Settlement Agreement resolving the antitrust actions brought by home sellers against the Company, except to the extent that the class includes home buyers who also are part of the home sellers settling class referenced above that released their claims as home buyers. On July 15, 2025, all of the Lutz plaintiffs’ claims against the Company were dismissed. The federal antitrust claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims were dismissed without prejudice with 21 days to replead. The Lutz plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on August 5, 2025, which the Company moved to dismiss. On April 17, 2026, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the claim that was made under California’s Unfair Competition Law, while the Court deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss as to antitrust standing and directed the parties to file supplemental briefing, and otherwise denied the Company’s motion to dismiss in all other respects.

In October 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois preliminarily approved a nationwide settlement entered by several real estate brokerage companies in Tuccori v. At World Properties, LLC, et al. (N.D. Ill.) (the “Tuccori case”), a case that consolidated certain purported class action lawsuits filed by home buyers. The settlement included an opt-in procedure pursuant to which other companies subject to similar home buyer antitrust claims could opt into the Tuccori settlement, subject to court approval. In April 2026, the Company opted into a settlement agreement (the “Tuccori Settlement Agreement”) with the purported class of home buyers in the Tuccori case, which is structured to resolve the claims asserted against the Company in, or arising from the same factual predicates as, the Lutz case. Although the Company was not a defendant in the Tuccori action, the opt‑in settlement releases the Company, its subsidiaries, and affiliated agents from the claims against it in the Lutz case. The settlement is not an admission of liability, nor does the Company concede or validate any of the claims asserted against it. The Tuccori Settlement Agreement provides for a monetary payment by the Company payable in installments over time. The Company also agreed to abide by the same business practice changes, and emphasize the same existing practices, previously agreed to by the Company in the Gibson Settlement Agreement, as described herein. The amount payable by the Company under the Tuccori Settlement Agreement was fully reserved at March 31, 2026.

Two real estate salespersons formerly associated with the Company as independent contractors, have, together or separately, been named as defendants in multiple complaints by women accusing them of sexual assault and related wrongdoing, and in March 2026 they were convicted of criminal charges related to similar alleged conduct. On February 28, 2025, the former real estate salespersons and several other defendants, including the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer were named as defendants in one of these lawsuits, the Koste litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Plaintiffs have brought claims against the Company under the New York Gender-Motivated Violence Act and sex trafficking, negligence, and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims. The Company denies liability and is defending vigorously against these claims. The Company has filed motions to dismiss the claims against it, which will be heard by the court on June 25, 2026. On January 22, 2026, the former real estate salespersons and several other defendants, including the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer, were named as defendants in the Rodriguez litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in which Plaintiff brought claims against the Company under federal sex trafficking and Florida human trafficking laws. On April 29, 2026, the plaintiff filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the Florida human trafficking claims. The federal trafficking claims remain. The Company denies liability and is defending vigorously against these claims.

On November 14, 2025, a Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint, Barbara Strougo derivatively on behalf of Douglas Elliman, Inc. vs. Howard M. Lorber, et al. (the “Strougo Litigation”), was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Chancery Court”) on behalf of the Company, as nominal defendant, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers (the “Individual Defendants”). The complaint alleged breach-of-fiduciary duty claims against the Individual Defendants. The parties to the Strougo Litigation reached an agreement to settle the Strougo Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth in a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release that was filed with the Chancery Court on February 19, 2026 (the “Strougo Settlement Agreement”). The Strougo Settlement Agreement provides for the final dismissal of the Strougo Litigation in exchange for (i) a settlement payment to the Company of $17,500, subject to reductions for attorneys’ fees and expenses, in an amount to be determined by the Chancery Court and (ii) the implementation by the Company of certain corporate-governance enhancements and reforms. Certain of the Company’s insurers have agreed to fund the settlement. The Strougo Settlement Agreement remains subject to final Chancery Court approval. The Chancery Court is scheduled to hold a settlement fairness hearing related to the Strougo Settlement Agreement on June 29, 2026. No amounts relating to the proposed settlement have been recorded as of March 31, 2026.

Litigation is subject to uncertainties, and it is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending cases or that more cases, including antitrust lawsuits, could be commenced. With the commencement of any new case, the defense costs and the risks relating to the unpredictability of litigation increase. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred. Management reviews on a quarterly basis with counsel all pending litigation and evaluates the probability of a loss being incurred and whether an estimate can be made of the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the financial impact of these litigation matters. For the three months ended March 31, 2026, the Company incurred legal expenses and settlement costs totaling $7,240 (included within “General and administrative expenses,” of which $3,710 is for settlement expenses, on the condensed consolidated statement of operations). For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the Company incurred legal expenses and settlement costs totaling $4,567 (included within “General and administrative expenses,” of which $208 is for settlement expenses, on the condensed consolidated statement of