Commitments And Contingencies (Notes)	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation The Company is involved in various claims, legal proceedings, alternative dispute resolution and governmental inquiries or regulatory actions, including the matters described below. Litigation and other disputes are inherently unpredictable and subject to substantial uncertainties. Even cases brought by us can involve counterclaims asserted against us and even in matters in which we are not a named party, regulatory investigations and other litigation can have significant implications for the Company, particularly to the extent that changes in industry rules and practices can directly impact us. In addition, litigation and other legal matters, including class action lawsuits, multi-party litigation 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. Certain types of claims, such as RESPA and antitrust laws, generally provide for joint and several liability and treble damages. Insurance coverage may be unavailable for certain types of claims (including antitrust and TCPA litigation), insurance carriers may dispute coverage, and even where coverage is provided, it may not cover the full amount of losses the Company incurs. The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for legal matters as appropriate. The Company records litigation accruals for legal matters when it is both probable that a liability will be incurred, and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Where the reasonable estimate of the probable loss is a range, the Company records as an accrual in its financial statements the most likely estimate of the loss, or the low end of the range if there is no "most likely" estimate. For other litigation, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible losses that could potentially result from such litigation. The captioned matters described herein cover evolving, complex litigation and the Company assesses its accruals on an ongoing basis taking into account the procedural stage and developments in the litigation. The Company could incur charges or judgments or enter into settlements of claims, based upon future events or developments, with liabilities 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. From time to time, even if the Company believes it has substantial defenses, it may consider litigation settlements based on a variety of circumstances. All of these matters are presented as currently captioned, but Realogy Holdings Corp. has been renamed Anywhere Real Estate Inc. Antitrust Litigation The three bulleted cases directly below are 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: •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) (formerly captioned as Sitzer); •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); and •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). In October 2023, the Company 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 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 the Company, all subsidiaries, brands, affiliated agents, and franchisees 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, Anywhere has agreed to injunctive relief as well as monetary relief of $83.5 million, of which $30 million has been paid and the remaining $53.5 million will be due within 21 business days after all appellate rights are exhausted, the timing of which is uncertain but which we now anticipate may occur in late 2025 or early 2026. The Anywhere Settlement includes injunctive relief for a period of five years, requiring practice changes in the Company-owned brokerage operations and that the Company recommend and encourage these same practice changes to its independently owned and operated franchise network. The injunctive relief, includes but is not limited to, reminding Company-owned brokerages, franchisees and their respective agents that Anywhere has no rule requiring offers of compensation to buyer brokers; prohibiting Company-owned brokerages (and recommending to franchisees) and agents from using technology (or manually) to sort listings by offers of compensation, unless requested by the client; eliminating any minimum client commission for Company-owned brokerages; and refraining from adopting any requirement that Company-owned brokerages, franchisees or their respective agents belong to the National Association of Realtors (“NAR”) or follow NAR’s Code of Ethics or MLS handbook. The practice changes are to take place no later than six months after the Anywhere Settlement receives final court approval and all appellate rights are exhausted. In addition, since late October 2023, dozens of copycat additional lawsuits with similar or related claims have been filed against various real estate brokerages, NAR, MLSs, and/or state and local Realtor associations, about a third of which name Anywhere, its subsidiaries or franchisees. In those cases, plaintiffs have generally either agreed to dismiss or stay the actions against Anywhere, its subsidiaries or franchisees pending the conclusion of the appeals of the trial court's grant of final approval of the Anywhere Settlement. Separately, a putative nationwide class action on behalf of home buyers (instead of sellers) captioned 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) was filed on January 25, 2021 ("Batton", formerly captioned as Leeder), in which the plaintiffs take issue with certain NAR policies, 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 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 only claims remaining outstanding are state law claims. The Company's motion to dismiss has been denied. The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case, believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs’ claims, and is vigorously defending this litigation. In addition to these substantial defenses, the final approval of the Anywhere Settlement has limited the size of the Batton case because the settling plaintiffs are releasing claims of the type alleged in Batton. As noted above, the named plaintiffs in the Batton case have filed an appeal of the final approval of the Anywhere Settlement, objecting to the release of buy-side claims in that settlement. Homie Technology v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Utah). On August 22, 2024, Homie Technology filed a complaint against NAR, the Company, 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 NAR rules 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. The Company'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. McFall v. Canadian Real Estate Association, et al., Federal Court, Canada, Court File No. T-119-24. In this putative class action, filed on January 18, 2024, 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. We believe the court will reexamine this order upon conclusion of the appeal in a previously filed matter involving similar allegations but different parties. 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, 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 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, the Company entered into a settlement of the case pursuant to which it will pay $20 million ($19 million remaining), subject to final approval by the court. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 10, 2025, subject to the terms and conditions of the court’s order. The final approval hearing for the settlement has been set for August 28, 2025. * * * Cendant Corporate Liabilities and Legacy Tax Matter 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 $1 million at June 30, 2025 and $40 million at December 31, 2024, respectively. The due to former parent balance at December 31, 2024 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. In December 2022, a hearing was held with the California Office of Tax Appeals ("OTA") on a Cendant legacy tax matter involving Avis Budget Group that related to a 1999 transaction. The case presented two issues: (i) whether the notices of proposed assessment issued by the California Franchise Tax Board were barred by the statute of limitations; and (ii) whether a transaction undertaken by Avis Budget Group in tax year 1999 constituted a tax-free reorganization under the Internal Revenue Code. In March 2023, the OTA decided in favor of the California Franchise Tax Board on both issues. On April 10, 2024, the Company's petition for rehearing was denied by the OTA. In May 2025, the Company paid $41 million, representing its portion of this legacy tax matter, which it intends to appeal. 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 $250,000. These escrow and trust deposits totaled approximately $846 million at June 30, 2025 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.

Litigation and other disputes are inherently unpredictable and subject to substantial uncertainties. Even cases brought by us can involve counterclaims asserted against us and even in matters in which we are not a named party, regulatory investigations and other litigation can have significant implications for the Company, particularly to the extent that changes in industry rules and practices can directly impact us. In addition, litigation and other legal matters, including class action lawsuits, multi-party litigation 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. Certain types of claims, such as RESPA and antitrust laws, generally provide for joint and several liability and treble damages. Insurance coverage may be unavailable for certain types of claims (including antitrust and TCPA litigation), insurance carriers may dispute coverage, and even where coverage is provided, it may not cover the full amount of losses the Company incurs.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for legal matters as appropriate. The Company records litigation accruals for legal matters when it is both probable that a liability will be incurred, and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Where the reasonable estimate of the probable loss is a range, the Company records as an accrual in its financial statements the most likely estimate of the loss, or the low end of the range if there is no "most likely" estimate. For other litigation, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible losses that could potentially result from such litigation.

The captioned matters described herein cover evolving, complex litigation and the Company assesses its accruals on an ongoing basis taking into account the procedural stage and developments in the litigation. The Company could incur charges or judgments or enter into settlements of claims, based upon future events or developments, with liabilities 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.

The three bulleted cases directly below are 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:

•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) (formerly captioned as Sitzer);

In October 2023, the Company 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 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 the Company, all subsidiaries, brands, affiliated agents, and franchisees 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, Anywhere has agreed to injunctive relief as well as monetary relief of $83.5 million, of which $30 million has been paid and the remaining $53.5 million will be due within 21 business days after all appellate rights are exhausted, the timing of which is uncertain but which we now anticipate may occur in late 2025 or early 2026.

The Anywhere Settlement includes injunctive relief for a period of five years, requiring practice changes in the Company-owned brokerage operations and that the Company recommend and encourage these same practice changes to its independently owned and operated franchise network. The injunctive relief, includes but is not limited to, reminding Company-owned brokerages, franchisees and their respective agents that Anywhere has no rule requiring offers of compensation to buyer brokers; prohibiting Company-owned brokerages (and recommending to franchisees) and agents from using technology (or manually) to sort listings by offers of compensation, unless requested by the client; eliminating any minimum client commission for Company-owned brokerages; and refraining from adopting any requirement that Company-owned brokerages, franchisees or their respective agents belong to the National Association of Realtors (“NAR”) or follow NAR’s Code of Ethics or MLS handbook. The practice changes are to take place no later than six months after the Anywhere Settlement receives final court approval and all appellate rights are exhausted.

In addition, since late October 2023, dozens of copycat additional lawsuits with similar or related claims have been filed against various real estate brokerages, NAR, MLSs, and/or state and local Realtor associations, about a third of which name Anywhere, its subsidiaries or franchisees. In those cases, plaintiffs have generally either agreed to dismiss or stay the actions against Anywhere, its subsidiaries or franchisees pending the conclusion of the appeals of the trial court's grant of final approval of the Anywhere Settlement.

Separately, a putative nationwide class action on behalf of home buyers (instead of sellers) captioned 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) was filed on January 25,

2021 ("Batton", formerly captioned as Leeder), in which the plaintiffs take issue with certain NAR policies, 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 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 only claims remaining outstanding are state law claims. The Company's motion to dismiss has been denied. The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case, believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs’ claims, and is vigorously defending this litigation. In addition to these substantial defenses, the final approval of the Anywhere Settlement has limited the size of the Batton case because the settling plaintiffs are releasing claims of the type alleged in Batton. As noted above, the named plaintiffs in the Batton case have filed an appeal of the final approval of the Anywhere Settlement, objecting to the release of buy-side claims in that settlement.

Homie Technology v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Utah). On August 22, 2024, Homie Technology filed a complaint against NAR, the Company, 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 NAR rules 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. The Company'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.

McFall v. Canadian Real Estate Association, et al., Federal Court, Canada, Court File No. T-119-24. In this putative class action, filed on January 18, 2024, 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. We believe the court will reexamine this order upon conclusion of the appeal in a previously filed matter involving similar allegations but different parties.

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, 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 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, the Company entered into a settlement of the case pursuant to which it will pay $20 million ($19 million remaining), subject to final approval by the court. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 10, 2025, subject to the terms and conditions of the court’s order. The final approval hearing for the settlement has been set for August 28, 2025.

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 $1 million at June 30, 2025 and $40 million at December 31, 2024, respectively. The due to former parent balance at December 31, 2024 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.

In December 2022, a hearing was held with the California Office of Tax Appeals ("OTA") on a Cendant legacy tax matter involving Avis Budget Group that related to a 1999 transaction. The case presented two issues: (i) whether the notices of proposed assessment issued by the California Franchise Tax Board were barred by the statute of limitations; and (ii) whether a transaction undertaken by Avis Budget Group in tax year 1999 constituted a tax-free reorganization under the Internal Revenue Code. In March 2023, the OTA decided in favor of the California Franchise Tax Board on both issues. On April 10, 2024, the Company's petition for rehearing was denied by the OTA. In May 2025, the Company paid $41 million, representing its portion of this legacy tax matter, which it intends to appeal.

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.

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 $250,000. These escrow and trust deposits totaled approximately $846 million at June 30, 2025 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.