Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings The Company is currently involved in, and may be involved in, disputes, legal proceedings, claims, and regulatory and governmental inquiries and investigations, and has received subpoenas and requests for documents and information, in connection with, among other things, antitrust and anti-competition claims. Further, the Company is currently involved in, and may be involved in, commercial disputes, labor and employment claims, intellectual property disputes, consumer complaints, and matters related to regulatory compliance. The Company does not expect any material financial loss or business implications related to these matters. However, the outcomes of the Company’s regulatory investigations and legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable and subject to substantial uncertainties. Certain claims, including RESPA, antitrust, and TCPA matters, may involve joint and several liability or significant, potentially trebled damages. When the Company determines that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, a liability is recorded and disclosed if the amount is material to the Company’s business taken as a whole. When a material loss contingency is only reasonably possible, the Company does not record a liability, but instead discloses the nature and the amount of the claim and an estimate of the loss or range of loss, if such an estimate can reasonably be made. Legal costs related to the defense of loss contingencies are expensed as incurred. Claims or regulatory actions against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could have an adverse impact on the Company due to legal costs, diversion of management resources and other elements. Except as identified with respect to the matters below, the Company does not believe that the outcome of any individual existing legal or regulatory proceeding to which it is a party will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition or overall business in each case, taken as a whole. The Company and its subsidiaries, inclusive of those subsidiaries acquired as a part of the Anywhere Merger, have been named as defendants in lawsuits that allege, among other things, violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 or other antitrust laws, as set forth below (the “Antitrust Lawsuits”). Real Estate Commission Sell-Side Antitrust Litigation Anywhere was formerly known as Realogy Holdings Corp. and is named in the following three class actions covering sellers of homes utilizing a broker during the class period that challenge residential real estate industry rules and practices that require an offer of compensation and payment of buyer-broker commissions and certain alleged associated practices: (1) Burnett, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 4:19-CV-00332 (W.D. Mo.) (“Burnett”), filed on April 29, 2019, (2) Moehrl, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 1:19-CV-01610 (N.D. Ill.) (“Moehrl”), filed on March 6, 2019, and (3) Nosalek, et al. v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-CV-12244 (D. Mass.) (“Nosalek”), filed on December 17, 2022. In October 2023, Anywhere agreed to a settlement, on a nationwide basis, of all claims asserted or that could have been asserted against Anywhere in the Burnett, Moehrl and Nosalek cases, including claims asserted on behalf of home sellers in similar matters (the “Anywhere Settlement”) and the court granted final approval of the Anywhere Settlement on May 9, 2024. The final approval has been appealed by several parties, including a plaintiff class member from the Batton I buy-side case (described below), specifically claiming that the release in the Anywhere Settlement should not release any buy-side claims that sellers may also have. The Anywhere Settlement releases Anywhere, including all of its subsidiary company-owned brokerages and franchise-affiliated brokerages, and their affiliated real estate professionals from all claims that were or could have been asserted by all persons who sold a home that was listed on a multiple listing service anywhere in the United States where a commission was paid to any brokerage in connection with the sale of the home in the relevant class period. The Anywhere Settlement is not an admission of liability, nor does it concede or validate any of the claims asserted against Anywhere. Under the terms of the nationwide Anywhere Settlement, which was entered into prior to the closing of the Anywhere Merger, Anywhere agreed to injunctive relief (including practice changes) as well as monetary relief of $84 million, of which $30 million has been paid and the remaining $54 million will be due within 21 business days after all appellate rights are exhausted. While the timing of this payment is uncertain, the Company currently expects the payment to occur in 2026. Four putative class action lawsuits, captioned Gibson, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 4:23-cv-00788-FJG (W.D. Mo.) (“Gibson”), filed on October 31, 2023, Grace v. National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 3:23-cv-06352 (N.D. Cal.) (“Grace”), filed on December 8, 2023, Fierro, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00449 (C.D. Cal.) (“Fierro”), filed on January 17, 2024, and Whaley v. Arizona Association of Realtors, Case No. 2:24-cv-00105 (D. Nev.) (“Whaley”), filed on January 15, 2024 name the Company as a defendant and allege, among other things, that certain trade associations, including the National Association of Realtors, multiple listing services, and real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. Umpa, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., 4:23-cv-00945 (W.D. Mo.) (“Umpa”), filed on December 27, 2023, was consolidated into the Gibson matter on April 23, 2024 (Umpa hereafter referred to singularly as Gibson). Boykin v. National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 2:24-cv-00340 (D. Nev.) (“Boykin”), filed on February 16, 2024, was terminated and consolidated into the Whaley matter on March 20, 2024. The plaintiffs in Gibson allege a nationwide scope, while the Grace and Fierro matters are limited in scope to Northern California and Southern California, respectively and the Whaley matter is limited in scope to Nevada. Two putative class action lawsuits, March v. Real Estate Board of New York, et al., No. 1:23-cv-09995 (S.D.N.Y.) (“March”), filed on November 13, 2023, and Friedman v. Real Estate Board of New York, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09601 (S.D.N.Y.) (“Friedman”), filed on January 18, 2024, name the Company as a defendant and allege, among other things, that the Real Estate Board of New York, and a number of real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. The Friedman and March matters also allege violations of the Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 340, and the March matter further seeks injunctive relief pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26. The Friedman and March matters are limited in scope to the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn, and Manhattan, respectively. On March 21, 2024, the Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve Gibson on a nationwide basis (the “Compass Settlement”). The Compass Settlement resolves all claims in these cases and similar claims in other lawsuits alleging claims on behalf of sellers on a nationwide basis against the Company, including all of its subsidiary company-owned brokerages and franchise-affiliated brokerages, and their affiliated agents (collectively, the “Claims”) and releases them from the Claims. Under the Compass Settlement, the Company agreed to pay $58 million and make certain changes to its business practices. The Company’s motion for final approval of the Compass Settlement was granted on October 31, 2024. The final approval ruling was appealed by certain class members that objected to the Compass Settlement, including but not limited to plaintiffs in the March and Friedman matters, referenced above, and the Batton II matter referenced below. The appeal was heard on January 14, 2026 and the parties await a decision by the court. The Grace, Fierro, Whaley, March, and Friedman cases are stayed pending the appeal of the final approval of the Compass Settlement. No further amounts are due under the Compass Settlement. The Company does not expect the terms of the proposed Compass Settlement, the Anywhere Settlement, or the process of moving to enforce the settlements nationwide to have a material impact on its future operations. In addition, since late October 2023, dozens of copycat additional lawsuits with similar or related claims have been filed against various real estate brokerages, the National Association of Realtors, MLSs, and/or state and local Realtor associations, less than a third of which name the Company, its subsidiaries or franchisees. In those cases, plaintiffs have generally either agreed to dismiss or stay the actions against the Company, its subsidiaries or franchisees pending the conclusion of the appeals of the trial court's grant of final approval of the Compass and Anywhere Settlements, including the putative class action lawsuits of QJ Team, LLC, et al. v. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc., et al., No. 4:23-cv-01013 (E.D. Tx.) (“QJ Team”), filed on November 13, 2023 and Peiffer v. Latter & Blum Holding, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00557 (E.D. La.) (“Peiffer”), filed on March 5, 2024, each of which the Company formerly presented as separately captioned matters in the Commitments and Contingencies footnote. Real Estate Commission Buy-Side Antitrust Litigation Separately, a putative nationwide class action on behalf of home buyers (instead of sellers) captioned Batton, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 1:21-CV-00430 (N.D. Ill.) (“Batton I”), which names Anywhere, was filed on January 25, 2021, in which the plaintiffs take issue with certain policies of the National Association of Realtors, including those related to buyer-broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl, Burnett and Nosalek matters, but claim the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers), and seek a permanent injunction enjoining the National Association of Realtors from establishing in the future the same or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in the action as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. The only claims remaining outstanding are state law claims. The final approval of the Anywhere Settlement has limited the size of the Batton I case because the settling plaintiffs are releasing claims of the type alleged in Batton I. As noted above, the named plaintiffs in the Batton I case have filed an appeal of the final approval of the Anywhere Settlement, objecting to the release of buy-side claims in that settlement. On November 13, 2025, the court struck the class certification motion filed by the Batton I plaintiffs and stayed all class certification proceedings pending resolution of the appeal of the Anywhere Settlement (though fact discovery would continue). As described in the next paragraph, developments in a separate, related buy‑side action, Tuccori v. At World Properties, et al., have implications for resolution of the claims asserted against Anywhere in Batton I. Tuccori v. At World Properties, et al., (N.D. Ill.), No. 1:24-CV-00150 (“Tuccori”), is a case that consolidated several purported class actions filed by home buyers. On October 15, 2025, the court in Tuccori granted preliminary approval of a nationwide settlement entered by several real estate brokerages related to the home buyer claims (“Tuccori Settlement”). The Tuccori Settlement, as preliminarily approved by the court on October 15, 2025, included an opt-in procedure under which other companies subject to home buyer claims could opt into the Tuccori Settlement, subject to preliminary and final court approval of such an opt-in settlement. On February 22, 2026, Anywhere opted into the Tuccori Settlement via a nationwide Opt-In Settlement Agreement (“Anywhere Opt-In Settlement” with Anywhere being an “Opt-In Settlor”). On February 23, 2026, the Tuccori plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the Anywhere Opt-In Settlement and several other opt-in settlements by other real estate brokerages. Anywhere agreed to pay $10 million under the Anywhere Opt-In Settlement (which was properly reserved at December 31, 2025), and paid $1 million of this obligation in March 2026. The Anywhere Opt-In Settlement received preliminarily court approval on March 6, 2026 and, if finally approved by the court and sustained on any appeal, will release Anywhere and all of its respective past, present, and future direct and indirect parents (including holding companies), subsidiaries, related entities and affiliates, associates (all as defined in SEC Rule 12b-2 promulgated pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), predecessors, and successors, and all of their respective franchisees, and sub-franchisors from any and all state and federal claims regardless of the cause of action arising from or related to conduct that was or could have been alleged in the Tuccori Case or against Opt-In Settlor in the Batton Case (as described in the prior paragraph) based on any or all of the same factual predicates as those claims, including but not limited to claims based on antitrust laws, consumer protection or other state laws, and/or anticompetitive conduct relating to the commissions negotiated, offered, obtained, or paid to brokerages, or the impact of the foregoing on the purchase price, in connection with the purchase or sale of residential real estate. Certain Batton I plaintiffs have lodged challenges to the Anywhere Opt-In Settlement, both before the Batton I Court and before the Tuccori Court, including appeals of rulings adverse to their challenges. By order dated April 16, 2026, the Batton I Court stayed all discovery and struck the pending discovery deadline pending resolution of the issues surrounding the Anywhere Opt-In Settlement in Tuccori. Subsequently, by order dated May 29, 2026, the Batton I Court stayed that entire case after the Company and other defendants received preliminary approval of settlements they entered in Tuccori. Batton, et al. v. Compass, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-15618 (N.D. Ill.) (“Batton II”), filed on November 2, 2023, names Compass and seven other brokerages as defendants. The allegations in Batton II are substantially similar to those contained in Batton I. Compass and the defendants in the Batton II matter filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 21, 2024, which the court denied on March 24, 2026. In April 2026, Compass opted into the Tuccori Settlement via the nationwide Opt-In Settlement Agreement (the “Compass Opt-In Settlement”). The Compass Opt-In Settlement amount is approximately $7 million. The Tuccori Court granted preliminary approval of the Compass Opt-In Settlement on May 26, 2026 and we paid $1 million of this obligation in June 2026. On May 29, 2026, as a result of preliminary approval of the Compass Opt-In Settlement in Tuccori, the Batton II Court stayed that entire case. Assuming final court approval of each of the Anywhere and Compass Opt-In Settlements, we currently expect to pay the remaining settlement amounts no earlier than the fourth quarter of 2026 and more likely in 2027. McFall v. Canadian Real Estate Association, et al., Federal Court, Canada, Court File No. T-119-24 is a putative class action, filed on January 18, 2024, in which plaintiff alleges that Coldwell Banker Canada, amongst other brokers, franchisors, Regional Real Estate Boards and the Canadian Real Estate Board conspired to fix the price of buyer brokerage services in violation of civil and criminal statutes. On March 14, 2024, the court entered an order functionally staying the matter pending further order of the court. The Company believes the court will reexamine this order upon conclusion of the appeal in a previously filed matter involving similar allegations but different parties. Other Antitrust Litigation Homie Technology v. National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 2:24CV00616 (D. Utah) (“Homie”), filed on August 22, 2024, names the National Association of Realtors, Anywhere, several other real estate brokerages and franchisors and an MLS, seeking damages and injunctive relief, alleging that the defendants had conspired to exclude Homie and other new market entrants from the market for real estate brokerage services. The alleged conspiracy includes creating a market structure that facilitates boycotts of new entrants, including through the implementation and enforcement of the rules of the National Association of Realtors governing the operation of MLSs, which Homie claims to be exclusionary. Homie asserts violations of federal and state antitrust laws along with a common law claim of economic harm. Anywhere’s motion to dismiss was granted and the action was dismissed with prejudice by the court on July 15, 2025. Homie filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal on August 7, 2025. The appeal has been briefed, argued and the Company awaits a ruling. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation In Bumpus, et al. v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et al., No. 3:19-cv-03309 (N.D. Cal.) (“Bumpus”), filed on June 11, 2019, plaintiffs allege that real estate professionals affiliated with Anywhere Advisors LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) using dialers provided by Mojo Dialing Solutions, LLC and others. Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a National Do Not Call Registry class, an Internal Do Not Call class, and an Artificial or Prerecorded Message class. In January 2025, Anywhere entered into a settlement of the case pursuant to which it will pay $20 million, subject to final approval by the court, which was granted on March 18, 2026. The Company assumed the remaining $19 million owed under the settlement as a liability in connection with the Anywhere Merger and made this final payment during the three months ended June 30, 2026. During the six months ended June 30, 2026, the Company recognized an expense of $7 million within General and administrative expense in the condensed consolidated statements of operations in connection with the Antitrust Lawsuits. Letter of Credit Agreements The Company has irrevocable letters of credit with various financial institutions, primarily related to security deposits for leased facilities. As of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company was contingently liable for $48 million and $31 million, respectively, under these letters of credit. The letters of credit were collateralized by the Revolving Credit Facility. Escrow and Trust Deposits As a service to its home buyers and sellers, the Company administers escrow and trust deposits, which represent undistributed amounts for the settlement of real estate transactions. Deposits at FDIC-insured institutions are insured up to $250,000. The escrow and trust deposits totaled approximately $1.3 billion and $300 million as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively. The increase from December 31, 2025 is primarily driven by the $822 million of escrow and trust deposits relating to the Anywhere business. These deposits are not assets of the Company and therefore are excluded from the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. However, the Company remains contingently liable for the disposition of these deposits.

The Company is currently involved in, and may be involved in, disputes, legal proceedings, claims, and regulatory and governmental inquiries and investigations, and has received subpoenas and requests for documents and information, in connection with, among other things, antitrust and anti-competition claims. Further, the Company is currently involved in, and may be involved in, commercial disputes, labor and employment claims, intellectual property disputes, consumer complaints, and matters related to regulatory compliance. The Company does not expect any material financial loss or business implications related to these matters. However, the outcomes of the Company’s regulatory investigations and legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable and subject to substantial uncertainties. Certain claims, including RESPA, antitrust, and TCPA matters, may involve joint and several liability or significant, potentially trebled damages. When the Company determines that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, a liability is recorded and disclosed if the amount is material to the Company’s business taken as a whole. When a material loss contingency is only reasonably possible, the Company does not record a liability, but instead discloses the nature and the amount of the claim and an estimate of the loss or range of loss, if such an estimate can reasonably be made. Legal costs related to the defense of loss contingencies are expensed as incurred.

Anywhere was formerly known as Realogy Holdings Corp. and is named in the following three class actions covering sellers of homes utilizing a broker during the class period that challenge residential real estate industry rules and practices that require an offer of compensation and payment of buyer-broker commissions and certain alleged associated practices: (1) Burnett, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 4:19-CV-00332 (W.D. Mo.) (“Burnett”), filed on April 29, 2019, (2) Moehrl, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 1:19-CV-01610 (N.D. Ill.) (“Moehrl”), filed on March 6, 2019, and (3) Nosalek, et al. v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-CV-12244 (D. Mass.) (“Nosalek”), filed on December 17, 2022.

In October 2023, Anywhere agreed to a settlement, on a nationwide basis, of all claims asserted or that could have been asserted against Anywhere in the Burnett, Moehrl and Nosalek cases, including claims asserted on behalf of home sellers in similar matters (the “Anywhere Settlement”) and the court granted final approval of the Anywhere Settlement on May 9, 2024. The final approval has been appealed by several parties, including a plaintiff class member from the Batton I buy-side case (described below), specifically claiming that the release in the Anywhere Settlement should not release any buy-side claims that sellers may also have.

Four putative class action lawsuits, captioned Gibson, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 4:23-cv-00788-FJG (W.D. Mo.) (“Gibson”), filed on October 31, 2023, Grace v. National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 3:23-cv-06352 (N.D. Cal.) (“Grace”), filed on December 8, 2023, Fierro, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00449 (C.D. Cal.) (“Fierro”), filed on January 17, 2024, and Whaley v. Arizona Association of Realtors, Case No. 2:24-cv-00105 (D. Nev.) (“Whaley”), filed on January 15, 2024 name the Company as a defendant and allege, among other things, that certain trade associations, including the National Association of Realtors, multiple listing services, and real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. Umpa, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., 4:23-cv-00945 (W.D. Mo.) (“Umpa”), filed on December 27, 2023, was consolidated into the Gibson matter on April 23, 2024 (Umpa hereafter referred to singularly as Gibson). Boykin v. National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 2:24-cv-00340 (D. Nev.) (“Boykin”), filed on February 16, 2024, was terminated and consolidated into the Whaley matter on March 20, 2024. The plaintiffs in Gibson allege a nationwide scope, while the Grace and Fierro matters are limited in scope to Northern California and Southern California, respectively and the Whaley matter is limited in scope to Nevada.

Two putative class action lawsuits, March v. Real Estate Board of New York, et al., No. 1:23-cv-09995 (S.D.N.Y.) (“March”), filed on November 13, 2023, and Friedman v. Real Estate Board of New York, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09601 (S.D.N.Y.) (“Friedman”), filed on January 18, 2024, name the Company as a defendant and allege, among other things, that the Real Estate Board of New York, and a number of real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. The Friedman and March matters also allege violations of the Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 340, and the March matter further seeks injunctive relief pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26. The Friedman and March matters are limited in scope to the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn, and Manhattan, respectively.

On March 21, 2024, the Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve Gibson on a nationwide basis (the “Compass Settlement”). The Compass Settlement resolves all claims in these cases and similar claims in other lawsuits alleging claims on behalf of sellers on a nationwide basis against the Company, including all of its subsidiary company-owned brokerages and franchise-affiliated brokerages, and their affiliated agents (collectively, the “Claims”) and releases them from the Claims. Under the Compass Settlement, the Company agreed to pay $58 million and make certain changes to its business practices. The Company’s motion for final approval of the Compass Settlement was granted on October 31, 2024. The final approval ruling was appealed by certain class members that objected to the Compass Settlement, including but not limited to plaintiffs in the March and Friedman matters, referenced above, and the Batton II matter referenced below. The appeal was heard on January 14, 2026 and the parties await a decision by the court. The Grace, Fierro, Whaley, March, and Friedman cases are stayed pending the appeal of the final approval of the Compass Settlement. No further amounts are due under the Compass Settlement.

In addition, since late October 2023, dozens of copycat additional lawsuits with similar or related claims have been filed against various real estate brokerages, the National Association of Realtors, MLSs, and/or state and local Realtor associations, less than a third of which name the Company, its subsidiaries or franchisees. In those cases, plaintiffs have generally either agreed to dismiss or stay the actions against the Company, its subsidiaries or franchisees pending the conclusion of the appeals of the trial court's grant of final approval of the Compass and Anywhere Settlements, including the putative class action lawsuits of QJ Team, LLC, et al. v. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc., et al., No. 4:23-cv-01013 (E.D. Tx.) (“QJ Team”), filed on November 13, 2023 and Peiffer v. Latter & Blum Holding, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00557 (E.D. La.) (“Peiffer”), filed on March 5, 2024, each of which the Company formerly presented as separately captioned matters in the Commitments and Contingencies footnote.

Separately, a putative nationwide class action on behalf of home buyers (instead of sellers) captioned Batton, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 1:21-CV-00430 (N.D. Ill.) (“Batton I”), which names Anywhere, was filed on January 25, 2021, in which the plaintiffs take issue with certain policies of the National Association of Realtors, including those related to buyer-broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl, Burnett and Nosalek matters, but claim the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers), and seek a permanent injunction enjoining the National Association of Realtors from establishing in the future the same or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in the action as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. The only claims remaining outstanding are state law claims. The final approval of the Anywhere Settlement has limited the size of the Batton I case because the settling plaintiffs are releasing claims of the type alleged in Batton I. As noted above, the named plaintiffs in the Batton I case have filed an appeal of the final approval of the Anywhere Settlement, objecting to the release of buy-side claims in that settlement. On November 13, 2025, the court struck the class certification motion filed by the Batton I plaintiffs and stayed all class certification proceedings pending resolution of the appeal of the Anywhere Settlement (though fact discovery would continue). As described in the next paragraph, developments in a separate, related buy‑side action, Tuccori v. At World Properties, et al., have implications for resolution of the claims asserted against Anywhere in Batton I.

Tuccori v. At World Properties, et al., (N.D. Ill.), No. 1:24-CV-00150 (“Tuccori”), is a case that consolidated several purported class actions filed by home buyers. On October 15, 2025, the court in Tuccori granted preliminary approval of a nationwide settlement entered by several real estate brokerages related to the home buyer claims (“Tuccori Settlement”). The Tuccori Settlement, as preliminarily approved by the court on October 15, 2025, included an opt-in procedure under which other companies subject to home buyer claims could opt into the Tuccori Settlement, subject to preliminary and final court approval of such an opt-in settlement. On February 22, 2026, Anywhere opted into the Tuccori Settlement via a nationwide Opt-In Settlement Agreement (“Anywhere Opt-In Settlement” with Anywhere being an “Opt-In Settlor”). On February 23, 2026, the Tuccori plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the Anywhere Opt-In Settlement and several other opt-in settlements by other real estate brokerages. Anywhere agreed to pay $10 million under the Anywhere Opt-In Settlement (which was properly reserved at December 31, 2025), and paid $1 million of this obligation in March 2026. The Anywhere Opt-In Settlement received preliminarily court approval on March 6, 2026 and, if finally approved by the court and sustained on any appeal, will release Anywhere and all of its respective past, present, and future direct and indirect parents (including holding companies), subsidiaries, related entities and affiliates, associates (all as defined in SEC Rule 12b-2 promulgated pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), predecessors, and successors, and all of their respective franchisees, and sub-franchisors from any and all state and federal claims regardless of the cause of action arising from or related to conduct that was or could have been alleged in the Tuccori Case or against Opt-In Settlor in the Batton Case (as described in the prior paragraph) based on any or all of the same factual predicates as those claims, including but not limited to claims based on antitrust laws, consumer protection or other state laws, and/or anticompetitive conduct relating to the commissions negotiated, offered, obtained, or paid to brokerages, or the impact of the foregoing on the purchase price, in connection with the purchase or sale of residential real estate. Certain Batton I plaintiffs have lodged challenges to the Anywhere Opt-In Settlement, both before the Batton I Court and before the Tuccori Court, including appeals of rulings adverse to their challenges. By order dated April 16, 2026, the Batton I Court stayed all discovery and struck the pending discovery deadline pending resolution of the issues surrounding the Anywhere Opt-In Settlement in Tuccori. Subsequently, by order dated May 29, 2026, the Batton I Court stayed that entire case after the Company and other defendants received preliminary approval of settlements they entered in Tuccori.

Batton, et al. v. Compass, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-15618 (N.D. Ill.) (“Batton II”), filed on November 2, 2023, names Compass and seven other brokerages as defendants. The allegations in Batton II are substantially similar to those contained in Batton I. Compass and the defendants in the Batton II matter filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 21, 2024, which the court denied on March 24, 2026. In April 2026, Compass opted into the Tuccori Settlement via the nationwide Opt-In Settlement Agreement (the “Compass Opt-In Settlement”). The Compass Opt-In Settlement amount is approximately $7 million. The Tuccori Court granted preliminary approval of the Compass Opt-In Settlement on May 26, 2026 and we paid $1 million of this obligation in June 2026. On May 29, 2026, as a result of preliminary approval of the Compass Opt-In Settlement in Tuccori, the Batton II Court stayed that entire case.

McFall v. Canadian Real Estate Association, et al., Federal Court, Canada, Court File No. T-119-24 is a putative class action, filed on January 18, 2024, in which plaintiff alleges that Coldwell Banker Canada, amongst other brokers, franchisors, Regional Real Estate Boards and the Canadian Real Estate Board conspired to fix the price of buyer brokerage services in violation of civil and criminal statutes. On March 14, 2024, the court entered an order functionally staying the matter pending further order of the court. The Company believes the court will reexamine this order upon conclusion of the appeal in a previously filed matter involving similar allegations but different parties.

Homie Technology v. National Association of Realtors, et al., No. 2:24CV00616 (D. Utah) (“Homie”), filed on August 22, 2024, names the National Association of Realtors, Anywhere, several other real estate brokerages and franchisors and an MLS, seeking damages and injunctive relief, alleging that the defendants had conspired to exclude Homie and other new market entrants from the market for real estate brokerage services. The alleged conspiracy includes creating a market structure that facilitates boycotts of new entrants, including through the implementation and enforcement of the rules of the National Association of Realtors governing the operation of MLSs, which Homie claims to be exclusionary. Homie asserts violations of federal and state antitrust laws along with a common law claim of economic harm. Anywhere’s motion to dismiss was granted and the action was dismissed with prejudice by the court on July 15, 2025. Homie filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal on August 7, 2025. The appeal has been briefed, argued and the Company awaits a ruling.

In Bumpus, et al. v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et al., No. 3:19-cv-03309 (N.D. Cal.) (“Bumpus”), filed on June 11, 2019, plaintiffs allege that real estate professionals affiliated with Anywhere Advisors LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) using dialers provided by Mojo Dialing Solutions, LLC and others. Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a National Do Not Call Registry class, an Internal Do Not Call class, and an Artificial or Prerecorded Message class. In January 2025, Anywhere entered into a settlement of the case pursuant to which it will pay $20 million, subject to final approval by the court, which was granted on March 18, 2026. The Company assumed the remaining $19 million owed under the settlement as a liability in connection with the Anywhere Merger and made this final payment during the three months ended June 30, 2026.