Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

The Company is involved in claims, legal proceedings, alternative dispute resolution and governmental inquiries or regulatory actions related to alleged contract disputes, business practices, intellectual property and other commercial, employment, regulatory and tax matters.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for legal matters as appropriate. The Company records litigation accruals for legal matters which are both probable and estimable. For other litigation for which a loss is reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.

The below captioned matters address certain current litigation involving the Company, including antitrust litigation, litigation related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), worker classification litigation, and Company-initiated litigation and counterclaims against us.

Litigation and other disputes are inherently unpredictable and subject to substantial uncertainties and unfavorable resolutions could occur and even cases brought by us can involve counterclaims asserted against us. In addition, litigation and other legal matters, including class action lawsuits and regulatory proceedings challenging practices that have broad impact, can be costly to defend and, depending on the class size and claims, could be costly to settle.

The issues raised under the header "Antitrust Litigation" in this Note 8 on class actions challenging residential real estate industry rules for seller payment of buyer broker/agent commissions have never been previously adjudicated, are pending in multiple jurisdictions, claim to cover lengthy periods, and – given that antitrust laws generally provide for joint and several liability and treble damages – could result in a broad range of outcomes, which makes it difficult to predict possible damages or how legal, fact and damages issues will be resolved. We believe that additional antitrust litigation may be possible depending on decisions in pending litigation or regulatory developments affecting the industry.

Due to the foregoing, the Company could incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims, based upon future events or developments, with liability that are materially in excess of amounts accrued and these judgments or settlements could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular period. As such, an increase in accruals for one or more of these matters in any reporting period may have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for that period.

However, the Company disputes the allegations against it in each of the captioned matters described below and will vigorously defend these actions.

The matters below are presented as currently captioned, but as noted elsewhere in this Quarterly Report, Realogy Holdings Corp. has been renamed Anywhere Real Estate Inc.

Antitrust Litigation

Burnett, Hendrickson, Breit, Trupiano, and Keel v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri). This is a certified class action complaint filed on April 29, 2019, amended on June 21, 2019, June 30, 2021 and May 6, 2022 (formerly captioned as Sitzer).

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly established mandatory anticompetitive policies and rules for the multiple listing services and its member brokers that require brokers to make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property. The plaintiffs' experts argue that “but for” the NAR policies and rules, these offers of buyer broker compensation would not be made and seek the recovery of any commissions paid to buyers’ brokers as to both brokerage and franchised operations.

The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the brokerage/franchisor defendants conspired with NAR by requiring their respective franchisees to comply with NAR’s policies, rules and Code of Ethics, and engaged in other allegedly anticompetitive conduct including, but not limited to, steering and agent education that allegedly promotes the practice of paying buyer broker compensation and discourages commission negotiation. Plaintiffs’ experts also dispute defendants’ contention that the practice of offering and paying buyer broker compensation is based on natural and legitimate economic incentives and benefits that would exist irrespective of the challenged NAR policies and rules and also contend that international practices are comparable benchmarks.

The Burnett litigation is limited both in allegations and relief sought to home sellers who from April 29, 2015, to the present used a listing broker affiliated with one of the brokerage/franchisor defendants in four MLSs that primarily serve the State of Missouri, purportedly in violation of federal and Missouri antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or from otherwise restricting

competition among brokers, an award of damages and/or restitution for the class period, attorneys fees and costs of suit. Plaintiffs allege joint and several liability and seek treble damages.

In addition, the plaintiffs include a cause of action for alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, or MMPA, on behalf of Missouri residents only, with a class period that commences April 29, 2014.

On August 22, 2019, the Court denied defendants’ motions to transfer the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on October 16, 2019, the Court denied the motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor defendants). In September 2019, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a statement of interest and appearances for this matter and, in July 2020 and July 2021, requested the Company provide it with all materials produced for this matter.

The Court granted class certification on April 22, 2022. The Company's petition for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification decision was denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 2, 2022. Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is ongoing and the parties have submitted their expert reports (which remain subject to rebuttal reports). The deadline for the parties to file any motions for summary judgment is August 29, 2022, and oral argument on the summary judgment is scheduled for November 18, 2022. The Court has set a trial date for February 21, 2023.

Moehrl, Cole, Darnell, Ramey, Umpa and Ruh v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). The Moehrl complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks the same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Burnett litigation, however, it is brought on behalf of home sellers in 20 MLSs in various parts of the country that do not overlap with the Burnett MLSs. In contrast to the Burnett plaintiffs, the Moehrl plaintiffs acknowledge that there are economic reasons why a seller would offer buyer compensation, but plaintiffs allege that buyer brokers are overpaid due to the mandatory nature of the applicable NAR policies and rules.

In October 2019, the DOJ filed a statement of interest for this matter. A motion to appoint lead counsel in the case was granted on an interim basis by the Court in May 2020. In October 2020, the Court denied the separate motions to dismiss filed in August 2019 by each of NAR and the Company (together with the other defendants named in the amended Moehrl complaint). Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on February 23, 2022. The Company’s opposition to the plaintiffs' class certification motion was filed on May 31, 2022, with plaintiffs’ reply in further support of their motion due August 22, 2022. Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is ongoing.

Batton, Bolton, Brace, Kim, James, Mullis, Bisbicos and Parsons v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division). In this putative nationwide class action filed on January 25, 2021 (formerly captioned as Leeder), the plaintiffs take issue with certain NAR policies, including those related to buyer broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl and Burnett matters as well as those at issue in the 2020 settlement between the DOJ and NAR, but claim the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and were unjustly enriched, and seek a permanent injunction enjoining NAR 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 Company (together with the other companies named in the complaint) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 20, 2021 and, on June 4, 2021, the plaintiff filed his opposition to which the defendants replied on July 6, 2021. On May 2, 2022, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. On July 6, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint substituting in eight new named plaintiffs and no longer naming Leeder as named plaintiff, that may consequently be referred to as Batton v. The National Association of Realtors, et al. The amended complaint is substantially similar to the original complaint but, in addition to the federal Sherman Act and unjust enrichment claims, plaintiffs have added two claims based on certain state antitrust statutes and consumer protection statutes.

Nosalek, Hirschorn and Hirschorn v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts). This is a putative class action filed on December 17, 2020, wherein the plaintiffs take issue with policies and rules similar to those at issue in the Moehrl and Burnett matters, but rather than objecting to the national policies and rules published by NAR, this lawsuit specifically objects to the alleged policies and rules of a multiple

listing service (MLS Property Information Network, Inc.) that is owned by realtors, including in part by one of the Company's company-owned brokerages. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and seek a permanent injunction, enjoining the defendants from continuing conduct determined to be unlawful, as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. On December 10, 2021, the Court denied the motion to dismiss filed in March 2021 by the Company (together with the other defendants named in the complaint). On March 1, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint substituting in two new named plaintiffs and no longer naming the Baumans as named plaintiffs, that may consequently be referred to as Nosalek v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc. The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of sellers who used a listing broker affiliated with one of the brokerage/franchisor defendants to list a property in the MLS Property Information Network, Inc. Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants has commenced.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation

Bumpus, et al. v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division). In this class action filed on June 11, 2019, against Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (f/k/a Realogy Holdings Corp.), Anywhere Intermediate Holdings LLC (f/k/a Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC), Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC (f/k/a Realogy Group LLC ), Anywhere Real Estate Services Group LLC (f/k/a Realogy Services Group LLC), and Anywhere Advisors LLC (f/k/a Realogy Brokerage Group LLC and NRT LLC), and Mojo Dialing Solutions, LLC, plaintiffs allege that independent sales agents affiliated with Anywhere Advisors LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) using dialers provided by Mojo 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 March 2022, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification for the foregoing classes as to the Anywhere defendants but not as to co-defendant Mojo and dismissed Mojo from the case. Plaintiffs and the Anywhere defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment were denied without prejudice on May 11, 2022. The Company's petition for permission to appeal the class certification filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was denied and the Plaintiffs’ class notice plan was approved on May 26, 2022. On August 1, 2022, the Court set a trial date for November 28, 2022. A mediation between the parties is currently scheduled for August 25, 2022, however, we can provide no assurance as to whether such mediation may be successful.

Worker Classification Litigation

Whitlach v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century 21 Real Estate LLC (Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County). This was filed as a putative class action complaint on December 20, 2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing business as Century 21 M&M (“Century 21 M&M”). The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real Estate (“Century 21”), as an alleged joint employer of the franchisee’s independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could potentially include all agents of both Century 21 M&M and Century 21 in California. In February 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Following the Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's non-PAGA claims without prejudice in June 2019, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting one cause of action for alleged civil penalties under PAGA in June 2020 and continued to pursue his PAGA claims as a representative of purported "aggrieved employees" as defined by PAGA. As such representative, the plaintiff seeks all non-individualized relief available to the purported aggrieved employees under PAGA, as well as attorneys’ fees. Under California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional penalties.

In the second amended complaint, the plaintiff continues to allege that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its independent real estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals, broker associates and other similar positions as independent contractors, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper records, failed to provide appropriate wage statements, made unlawful deductions from wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff and the putative class for business related expenses, resulting in violations of the California Labor Code. The demurrer filed by Century 21 M&M (and joined by Century 21) on August 3, 2020 to the plaintiff's amended complaint, was granted by the Court on November 10, 2020, dismissing the case without leave to replead. In January 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order granting the demurrer and filed its brief in support of the appeal on June 28, 2021. On October 28, 2021, Century 21 and Century 21 M&M filed their appellate brief in opposition to plaintiff’s appeal and on January 14, 2022, plaintiff filed its reply brief in support of the appeal. This case raises various previously unlitigated claims and the PAGA claim adds additional litigation, financial and operating uncertainties.

Company-Initiated Litigation and Related Counterclaims

Realogy Holdings Corp., NRT New York LLC (d/b/a The Corcoran Group), Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate LLC, NRT West, Inc., Martha Turner Properties, L.P. And Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate LLC v. Urban Compass, Inc., and Compass, Inc. (Supreme Court New York, New York County). On July 10, 2019, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries filed a complaint against Urban Compass, Inc. and Compass, Inc. (together, "Compass"), which was subsequently amended by the Company. The Company’s current complaint alleges misappropriation of trade secrets; tortious interference with contract; intentional and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; unfair competition under New York common law; violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professional Code Section 17200 et. seq. (unfair competition); violations of New York General Business Law Section 349 (deceptive acts or practices); violations of New York General Business Law Sections 350 and 350-a (false advertising); conversion; and defamation. The Company seeks, among other things, actual and compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. In January 2021, Compass filed its answer to the Company’s amended complaint, as well as counterclaims and third-party claims against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective business relations, defamation, injurious falsehoods, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Compass seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, interest and attorneys’ fees. In March 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss (with respect to certain counterclaims) and a reply (to the remaining counts of the counterclaims). On April 22, 2021, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court ordered the dismissal without prejudice of Compass’s third-party claims and those counterclaims against the Company related to unfair competition under New York common law, conspiracy and misappropriation of trade secrets. Discovery in the case is continuing.

Other

Examples of other legal matters involving the Company may include but are not limited to allegations:

•concerning antitrust and anti-competition matters;

•concerning alleged violations of RESPA, state consumer fraud statutes, federal consumer protection statutes or other state real estate law violations;

•that independent residential real estate sales agents engaged by our company owned brokerages or by affiliated franchisees—under certain state or federal laws—are potentially employees instead of independent contractors, and they or regulators therefore may bring claims against our Owned Brokerage Group for breach of contract, wage and hour classification claims, wrongful discharge, unemployment and workers' compensation and could seek benefits, back wages, overtime, indemnification, penalties related to classification practices and expense reimbursement available to employees or make similar claims against Franchise Group as an alleged joint employer of an affiliated franchisee’s independent sales agents;

•concerning other employment law matters, including other types of worker classification claims as well as wage and hour claims and retaliation claims;

•concerning information security, including claims under new and emerging data privacy laws related to the protection of customer, employee or third-party information;

•concerning cyber-crime, including claims related to the diversion of homesale transaction closing funds;

•that the Company is vicariously or jointly liable for the conduct of individuals or entities traditionally outside of our control, including franchisees and independent sales agents, under joint employer claims or other theories of actual or apparent agency;

•by current or former franchisees that franchise agreements were breached including improper terminations;

•concerning claims related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, including autodialer claims;

•concerning claims generally against the company owned brokerage operations for negligence, misrepresentation or breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the performance of real estate brokerage or other professional services as well as other brokerage claims associated with listing information and property history;

•related to intellectual property or copyright law, including infringement actions alleging improper use of copyrighted photographs on websites or in marketing materials without consent of the copyright holder or claims challenging our trademarks;

•concerning breach of obligations to make websites and other services accessible for consumers with disabilities;

•concerning claims generally against the title agent contending that the agent knew or should have known that a transaction was fraudulent or that the agent was negligent in addressing title defects or conducting the settlement;

•related to disclosure or securities law violations as well as derivative suits; and

•related to general fraud claims.

Other ordinary course legal proceedings that may arise from time to time include those related to commercial arrangements, indemnification (under contract or common law), franchising arrangements, the fiduciary duties of brokers, standard brokerage disputes like the failure to disclose accurate square footage or hidden defects in the property such as mold, claims under the False Claims Act (or similar state laws), consumer lending and debt collection law claims, employment law claims related to business actions responsive to the COVID-19 outbreak and governmental and regulatory directives thereto, state auction law, and violations of similar laws in countries where we operate around the world with respect to any of the foregoing. In addition, with the increasing requirements resulting from government laws and regulations concerning data breach notifications and data privacy and protection obligations, claims associated with these laws may become more common. While most litigation involves claims against the Company, from time to time the Company commences litigation, including litigation against former employees, franchisees and competitors when it alleges that such persons or entities have breached agreements or engaged in other wrongful conduct.

* * *

Cendant Corporate Liabilities and Guarantees to Cendant and Affiliates

Anywhere Group (then Realogy Corporation) separated from Cendant on July 31, 2006 (the "Separation"), pursuant to a plan by Cendant (now known as Avis Budget Group, Inc.) to separate into four independent companies—one for each of Cendant's business units—real estate services (Anywhere Group, formerly referred to as Realogy Group), travel distribution services ("Travelport"), hospitality services, including timeshare resorts ("Wyndham Worldwide"), and vehicle rental ("Avis Budget Group"). Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement dated as of July 27, 2006 among Cendant, Anywhere Group, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport (the "Separation and Distribution Agreement"), each of Anywhere Group, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport have assumed certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses), which are primarily related to each of their respective businesses. In addition, Anywhere Group has assumed 62.5% and Wyndham Worldwide has assumed 37.5% of certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses) of Cendant.

The due to former parent balance was $20 million at June 30, 2022 and $19 million at December 31, 2021, respectively. The due to former parent balance was comprised of the Company’s portion of the following: (i) Cendant’s remaining contingent tax liabilities, (ii) potential liabilities related to Cendant’s terminated or divested businesses, and (iii) potential liabilities related to the residual portion of accruals for Cendant operations.

Tax Matters

The Company is subject to income taxes in the United States and several foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining the worldwide provision for income taxes and recording related assets and liabilities. In the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. The Company is regularly under audit by tax authorities whereby the outcome of the audits is uncertain. The Company believes there is appropriate support for positions taken on its tax returns. The liabilities that have been recorded represent the best estimates of the probable loss on certain positions and are adequate for all open years based on an assessment of many factors including past experience and interpretations of tax law applied to the facts of each matter. However, the outcomes of tax audits are inherently uncertain.

Escrow and Trust Deposits

As a service to its customers, the Company administers escrow and trust deposits which represent undisbursed amounts received for the settlement of real estate transactions. Deposits at FDIC-insured institutions are insured up to $250 thousand. These escrow and trust deposits totaled $1,420 million at June 30, 2022 and while these deposits are not assets of the Company (and therefore are excluded from the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets), the Company remains contingently liable for the disposition of these deposits.

Cendant Spin-off Number of New Independent Companies | Independent_Companies

4

Guaranty Arrangement Percentage of Obligations Assumed by Realogy

62.50%

Due to former parent

$ 20,000

$ 19,000

Cash, FDIC insured amount

$ 250

Commitments And Contingencies (Details) $ in Thousands	6 Months Ended
Commitments And Contingencies (Details) $ in Thousands	Jun. 30, 2022 USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2021 USD ($)	Jul. 31, 2006 Independent_Companies
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation The Company is involved in claims, legal proceedings, alternative dispute resolution and governmental inquiries or regulatory actions related to alleged contract disputes, business practices, intellectual property and other commercial, employment, regulatory and tax matters. The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for legal matters as appropriate. The Company records litigation accruals for legal matters which are both probable and estimable. For other litigation for which a loss is reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses. The below captioned matters address certain current litigation involving the Company, including antitrust litigation, litigation related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), worker classification litigation, and Company-initiated litigation and counterclaims against us. Litigation and other disputes are inherently unpredictable and subject to substantial uncertainties and unfavorable resolutions could occur and even cases brought by us can involve counterclaims asserted against us. In addition, litigation and other legal matters, including class action lawsuits and regulatory proceedings challenging practices that have broad impact, can be costly to defend and, depending on the class size and claims, could be costly to settle. The issues raised under the header "Antitrust Litigation" in this Note 8 on class actions challenging residential real estate industry rules for seller payment of buyer broker/agent commissions have never been previously adjudicated, are pending in multiple jurisdictions, claim to cover lengthy periods, and – given that antitrust laws generally provide for joint and several liability and treble damages – could result in a broad range of outcomes, which makes it difficult to predict possible damages or how legal, fact and damages issues will be resolved. We believe that additional antitrust litigation may be possible depending on decisions in pending litigation or regulatory developments affecting the industry. Due to the foregoing, the Company could incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims, based upon future events or developments, with liability that are materially in excess of amounts accrued and these judgments or settlements could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular period. As such, an increase in accruals for one or more of these matters in any reporting period may have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for that period. However, the Company disputes the allegations against it in each of the captioned matters described below and will vigorously defend these actions. The matters below are presented as currently captioned, but as noted elsewhere in this Quarterly Report, Realogy Holdings Corp. has been renamed Anywhere Real Estate Inc. Antitrust Litigation Burnett, Hendrickson, Breit, Trupiano, and Keel v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri). This is a certified class action complaint filed on April 29, 2019, amended on June 21, 2019, June 30, 2021 and May 6, 2022 (formerly captioned as Sitzer). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly established mandatory anticompetitive policies and rules for the multiple listing services and its member brokers that require brokers to make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property. The plaintiffs' experts argue that “but for” the NAR policies and rules, these offers of buyer broker compensation would not be made and seek the recovery of any commissions paid to buyers’ brokers as to both brokerage and franchised operations. The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the brokerage/franchisor defendants conspired with NAR by requiring their respective franchisees to comply with NAR’s policies, rules and Code of Ethics, and engaged in other allegedly anticompetitive conduct including, but not limited to, steering and agent education that allegedly promotes the practice of paying buyer broker compensation and discourages commission negotiation. Plaintiffs’ experts also dispute defendants’ contention that the practice of offering and paying buyer broker compensation is based on natural and legitimate economic incentives and benefits that would exist irrespective of the challenged NAR policies and rules and also contend that international practices are comparable benchmarks. The Burnett litigation is limited both in allegations and relief sought to home sellers who from April 29, 2015, to the present used a listing broker affiliated with one of the brokerage/franchisor defendants in four MLSs that primarily serve the State of Missouri, purportedly in violation of federal and Missouri antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or from otherwise restricting competition among brokers, an award of damages and/or restitution for the class period, attorneys fees and costs of suit. Plaintiffs allege joint and several liability and seek treble damages. In addition, the plaintiffs include a cause of action for alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, or MMPA, on behalf of Missouri residents only, with a class period that commences April 29, 2014. On August 22, 2019, the Court denied defendants’ motions to transfer the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on October 16, 2019, the Court denied the motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor defendants). In September 2019, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a statement of interest and appearances for this matter and, in July 2020 and July 2021, requested the Company provide it with all materials produced for this matter. The Court granted class certification on April 22, 2022. The Company's petition for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification decision was denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 2, 2022. Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is ongoing and the parties have submitted their expert reports (which remain subject to rebuttal reports). The deadline for the parties to file any motions for summary judgment is August 29, 2022, and oral argument on the summary judgment is scheduled for November 18, 2022. The Court has set a trial date for February 21, 2023. Moehrl, Cole, Darnell, Ramey, Umpa and Ruh v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). The Moehrl complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks the same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Burnett litigation, however, it is brought on behalf of home sellers in 20 MLSs in various parts of the country that do not overlap with the Burnett MLSs. In contrast to the Burnett plaintiffs, the Moehrl plaintiffs acknowledge that there are economic reasons why a seller would offer buyer compensation, but plaintiffs allege that buyer brokers are overpaid due to the mandatory nature of the applicable NAR policies and rules. In October 2019, the DOJ filed a statement of interest for this matter. A motion to appoint lead counsel in the case was granted on an interim basis by the Court in May 2020. In October 2020, the Court denied the separate motions to dismiss filed in August 2019 by each of NAR and the Company (together with the other defendants named in the amended Moehrl complaint). Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on February 23, 2022. The Company’s opposition to the plaintiffs' class certification motion was filed on May 31, 2022, with plaintiffs’ reply in further support of their motion due August 22, 2022. Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is ongoing. Batton, Bolton, Brace, Kim, James, Mullis, Bisbicos and Parsons v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division). In this putative nationwide class action filed on January 25, 2021 (formerly captioned as Leeder), the plaintiffs take issue with certain NAR policies, including those related to buyer broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl and Burnett matters as well as those at issue in the 2020 settlement between the DOJ and NAR, but claim the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and were unjustly enriched, and seek a permanent injunction enjoining NAR 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 Company (together with the other companies named in the complaint) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 20, 2021 and, on June 4, 2021, the plaintiff filed his opposition to which the defendants replied on July 6, 2021. On May 2, 2022, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. On July 6, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint substituting in eight new named plaintiffs and no longer naming Leeder as named plaintiff, that may consequently be referred to as Batton v. The National Association of Realtors, et al. The amended complaint is substantially similar to the original complaint but, in addition to the federal Sherman Act and unjust enrichment claims, plaintiffs have added two claims based on certain state antitrust statutes and consumer protection statutes. Nosalek, Hirschorn and Hirschorn v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts). This is a putative class action filed on December 17, 2020, wherein the plaintiffs take issue with policies and rules similar to those at issue in the Moehrl and Burnett matters, but rather than objecting to the national policies and rules published by NAR, this lawsuit specifically objects to the alleged policies and rules of a multiple listing service (MLS Property Information Network, Inc.) that is owned by realtors, including in part by one of the Company's company-owned brokerages. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and seek a permanent injunction, enjoining the defendants from continuing conduct determined to be unlawful, as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. On December 10, 2021, the Court denied the motion to dismiss filed in March 2021 by the Company (together with the other defendants named in the complaint). On March 1, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint substituting in two new named plaintiffs and no longer naming the Baumans as named plaintiffs, that may consequently be referred to as Nosalek v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc. The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of sellers who used a listing broker affiliated with one of the brokerage/franchisor defendants to list a property in the MLS Property Information Network, Inc. Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants has commenced. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation Bumpus, et al. v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division). In this class action filed on June 11, 2019, against Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (f/k/a Realogy Holdings Corp.), Anywhere Intermediate Holdings LLC (f/k/a Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC), Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC (f/k/a Realogy Group LLC ), Anywhere Real Estate Services Group LLC (f/k/a Realogy Services Group LLC), and Anywhere Advisors LLC (f/k/a Realogy Brokerage Group LLC and NRT LLC), and Mojo Dialing Solutions, LLC, plaintiffs allege that independent sales agents affiliated with Anywhere Advisors LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) using dialers provided by Mojo 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 March 2022, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification for the foregoing classes as to the Anywhere defendants but not as to co-defendant Mojo and dismissed Mojo from the case. Plaintiffs and the Anywhere defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment were denied without prejudice on May 11, 2022. The Company's petition for permission to appeal the class certification filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was denied and the Plaintiffs’ class notice plan was approved on May 26, 2022. On August 1, 2022, the Court set a trial date for November 28, 2022. A mediation between the parties is currently scheduled for August 25, 2022, however, we can provide no assurance as to whether such mediation may be successful. Worker Classification Litigation Whitlach v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century 21 Real Estate LLC (Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County). This was filed as a putative class action complaint on December 20, 2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing business as Century 21 M&M (“Century 21 M&M”). The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real Estate (“Century 21”), as an alleged joint employer of the franchisee’s independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could potentially include all agents of both Century 21 M&M and Century 21 in California. In February 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Following the Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's non-PAGA claims without prejudice in June 2019, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting one cause of action for alleged civil penalties under PAGA in June 2020 and continued to pursue his PAGA claims as a representative of purported "aggrieved employees" as defined by PAGA. As such representative, the plaintiff seeks all non-individualized relief available to the purported aggrieved employees under PAGA, as well as attorneys’ fees. Under California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional penalties. In the second amended complaint, the plaintiff continues to allege that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its independent real estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals, broker associates and other similar positions as independent contractors, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper records, failed to provide appropriate wage statements, made unlawful deductions from wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff and the putative class for business related expenses, resulting in violations of the California Labor Code. The demurrer filed by Century 21 M&M (and joined by Century 21) on August 3, 2020 to the plaintiff's amended complaint, was granted by the Court on November 10, 2020, dismissing the case without leave to replead. In January 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order granting the demurrer and filed its brief in support of the appeal on June 28, 2021. On October 28, 2021, Century 21 and Century 21 M&M filed their appellate brief in opposition to plaintiff’s appeal and on January 14, 2022, plaintiff filed its reply brief in support of the appeal. This case raises various previously unlitigated claims and the PAGA claim adds additional litigation, financial and operating uncertainties. Company-Initiated Litigation and Related Counterclaims Realogy Holdings Corp., NRT New York LLC (d/b/a The Corcoran Group), Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate LLC, NRT West, Inc., Martha Turner Properties, L.P. And Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate LLC v. Urban Compass, Inc., and Compass, Inc. (Supreme Court New York, New York County). On July 10, 2019, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries filed a complaint against Urban Compass, Inc. and Compass, Inc. (together, "Compass"), which was subsequently amended by the Company. The Company’s current complaint alleges misappropriation of trade secrets; tortious interference with contract; intentional and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; unfair competition under New York common law; violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professional Code Section 17200 et. seq. (unfair competition); violations of New York General Business Law Section 349 (deceptive acts or practices); violations of New York General Business Law Sections 350 and 350-a (false advertising); conversion; and defamation. The Company seeks, among other things, actual and compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. In January 2021, Compass filed its answer to the Company’s amended complaint, as well as counterclaims and third-party claims against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective business relations, defamation, injurious falsehoods, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Compass seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, interest and attorneys’ fees. In March 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss (with respect to certain counterclaims) and a reply (to the remaining counts of the counterclaims). On April 22, 2021, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court ordered the dismissal without prejudice of Compass’s third-party claims and those counterclaims against the Company related to unfair competition under New York common law, conspiracy and misappropriation of trade secrets. Discovery in the case is continuing. Other Examples of other legal matters involving the Company may include but are not limited to allegations: •concerning antitrust and anti-competition matters; •concerning alleged violations of RESPA, state consumer fraud statutes, federal consumer protection statutes or other state real estate law violations; •that independent residential real estate sales agents engaged by our company owned brokerages or by affiliated franchisees—under certain state or federal laws—are potentially employees instead of independent contractors, and they or regulators therefore may bring claims against our Owned Brokerage Group for breach of contract, wage and hour classification claims, wrongful discharge, unemployment and workers' compensation and could seek benefits, back wages, overtime, indemnification, penalties related to classification practices and expense reimbursement available to employees or make similar claims against Franchise Group as an alleged joint employer of an affiliated franchisee’s independent sales agents; •concerning other employment law matters, including other types of worker classification claims as well as wage and hour claims and retaliation claims; •concerning information security, including claims under new and emerging data privacy laws related to the protection of customer, employee or third-party information; •concerning cyber-crime, including claims related to the diversion of homesale transaction closing funds; •that the Company is vicariously or jointly liable for the conduct of individuals or entities traditionally outside of our control, including franchisees and independent sales agents, under joint employer claims or other theories of actual or apparent agency; •by current or former franchisees that franchise agreements were breached including improper terminations; •concerning claims related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, including autodialer claims; •concerning claims generally against the company owned brokerage operations for negligence, misrepresentation or breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the performance of real estate brokerage or other professional services as well as other brokerage claims associated with listing information and property history; •related to intellectual property or copyright law, including infringement actions alleging improper use of copyrighted photographs on websites or in marketing materials without consent of the copyright holder or claims challenging our trademarks; •concerning breach of obligations to make websites and other services accessible for consumers with disabilities; •concerning claims generally against the title agent contending that the agent knew or should have known that a transaction was fraudulent or that the agent was negligent in addressing title defects or conducting the settlement; •related to disclosure or securities law violations as well as derivative suits; and •related to general fraud claims. Other ordinary course legal proceedings that may arise from time to time include those related to commercial arrangements, indemnification (under contract or common law), franchising arrangements, the fiduciary duties of brokers, standard brokerage disputes like the failure to disclose accurate square footage or hidden defects in the property such as mold, claims under the False Claims Act (or similar state laws), consumer lending and debt collection law claims, employment law claims related to business actions responsive to the COVID-19 outbreak and governmental and regulatory directives thereto, state auction law, and violations of similar laws in countries where we operate around the world with respect to any of the foregoing. In addition, with the increasing requirements resulting from government laws and regulations concerning data breach notifications and data privacy and protection obligations, claims associated with these laws may become more common. While most litigation involves claims against the Company, from time to time the Company commences litigation, including litigation against former employees, franchisees and competitors when it alleges that such persons or entities have breached agreements or engaged in other wrongful conduct. * * * Cendant Corporate Liabilities and Guarantees to Cendant and Affiliates Anywhere Group (then Realogy Corporation) separated from Cendant on July 31, 2006 (the "Separation"), pursuant to a plan by Cendant (now known as Avis Budget Group, Inc.) to separate into four independent companies—one for each of Cendant's business units—real estate services (Anywhere Group, formerly referred to as Realogy Group), travel distribution services ("Travelport"), hospitality services, including timeshare resorts ("Wyndham Worldwide"), and vehicle rental ("Avis Budget Group"). Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement dated as of July 27, 2006 among Cendant, Anywhere Group, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport (the "Separation and Distribution Agreement"), each of Anywhere Group, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport have assumed certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses), which are primarily related to each of their respective businesses. In addition, Anywhere Group has assumed 62.5% and Wyndham Worldwide has assumed 37.5% of certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses) of Cendant. The due to former parent balance was $20 million at June 30, 2022 and $19 million at December 31, 2021, respectively. The due to former parent balance was comprised of the Company’s portion of the following: (i) Cendant’s remaining contingent tax liabilities, (ii) potential liabilities related to Cendant’s terminated or divested businesses, and (iii) potential liabilities related to the residual portion of accruals for Cendant operations. Tax Matters The Company is subject to income taxes in the United States and several foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining the worldwide provision for income taxes and recording related assets and liabilities. In the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. The Company is regularly under audit by tax authorities whereby the outcome of the audits is uncertain. The Company believes there is appropriate support for positions taken on its tax returns. The liabilities that have been recorded represent the best estimates of the probable loss on certain positions and are adequate for all open years based on an assessment of many factors including past experience and interpretations of tax law applied to the facts of each matter. However, the outcomes of tax audits are inherently uncertain. Escrow and Trust Deposits As a service to its customers, the Company administers escrow and trust deposits which represent undisbursed amounts received for the settlement of real estate transactions. Deposits at FDIC-insured institutions are insured up to $250 thousand. These escrow and trust deposits totaled $1,420 million at June 30, 2022 and while these deposits are not assets of the Company (and therefore are excluded from the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets), the Company remains contingently liable for the disposition of these deposits.
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Cendant Spin-off Number of New Independent Companies \| Independent_Companies			4
Number of New Independent Companies per Cendant Business Unit \| Independent_Companies			1
Guaranty Arrangement Percentage of Obligations Assumed by Realogy	62.50%
Guaranty Arrangement Percentage of Obligations Assumed by Wyndham	37.50%
Due to former parent	$ 20,000	$ 19,000
Noninterest-bearing deposit liabilities	1,420,000
Maximum
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Cash, FDIC insured amount	$ 250