CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
CONTINGENCIES	Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES The Company is involved in litigation in the normal course of its business. Some claims are covered by the Company’s insurance policies in excess of any applicable retention. Other claims are not covered by the Company’s insurance policies, and the Company seeks contribution toward the payment of costs and expenses from agents for non-covered claims when applicable pursuant to the Company’s agent policies. The Company believes that the resolution of ordinary course matters will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. In October 2023, individual plaintiffs filed an action on behalf of a putative national class of home sellers from October 2019 through the present in the Western District of Missouri against the National Association of Realtors (“NAR”) and certain real estate brokerage firms, including the Company, alleging anticompetitive behavior in violation of federal antitrust laws arising from NAR’s requirement that sellers’ agents for Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) listed properties offer to pay a portion of commissions received on the sale of such properties to buyers’ agents (the Gibson case). Thereafter, additional litigation was filed by other plaintiffs on behalf of putative classes of home sellers from 2019 to the present against certain real estate brokerage firms, including the Company and/or its subsidiaries, alleging anticompetitive behavior, similar to the Gibson case: (i) the March case (November 2023 – Southern District of New York) – a putative class action on behalf of home sellers in Manhattan from November 2019 through the present; (ii) the Friedman case (January 2024 – Southern District of New York) – a putative class action on behalf of home sellers in certain parts of Brooklyn from January 2020 through present; (iii) the Umpa case (December 2023 - Western District of Missouri) – putative class action on behalf of home sellers nationwide (with certain markets excluded) from December 2019 through present, which has now been consolidated into the Gibson case; (iv) the Whaley case (January 2024 - District of Nevada) – putative class action on behalf of home sellers in Nevada from January 2020 through the present, and (v) the Boykin case (February 2024 - District of Nevada) – putative class action on behalf of home sellers in Nevada from February 2020 through the present, which has now been consolidated into the Whaley case. In April 2024, the Company entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to resolve, on a nationwide basis, the Gibson and Umpa cases (the “Lawsuits”). On April 30, 2024, the Court in the Lawsuits preliminarily approved the settlement, preliminarily certified the proposed settlement class and stayed the cases against the Company pending final approval of the Settlement Agreement. After preliminary approval, the Company obtained stays of the remaining actions against it, other than the Lutz case described below. The final approval hearing for the settlement took place on October 31,2024, and on November 4, 2024, the Settlement Agreement received final court approval and became effective as of that date. The settlement resolves all claims on a nationwide basis by the plaintiffs and proposed settlement class members in the Lawsuits, which includes, but is not limited to, all claims concerning brokerage commissions by the proposed settlement class members that were asserted in other lawsuits against the Company and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Claims”), and releases the Company, its subsidiaries, and affiliated agents from all Claims. The settlement is not an admission of liability, nor does the Company concede or validate any of the claims asserted against it. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company paid into an escrow fund $7,750 on June 12, 2024, and agreed to pay two $5,000 contingent payments subject to certain financial contingencies on or before December 31, 2027 (collectively, the “Settlement Amount”). The contingent payments may be accelerated under certain circumstances. The Company recognized an expense of $17,750 for the year ended December 31, 2024. In addition, the Company agreed to make certain changes to its business practices and emphasize certain practices that have been a part of the Company’s longstanding policies and practices, including: reminding its brokerages and agents that the Company has no rule requiring agents to make or accept offers of compensation; requiring its brokerages and agents to clearly disclose to clients that commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable; prohibiting its brokerages and buyer agents from claiming buyer agent services are free; requiring its brokerages and agents to disclose to the buyer the listing broker’s offer of compensation for prospective buyers’ agents as soon as possible; prohibiting its brokerages and agents from using any technology (or manual methods) to sort listings by offers of compensation, unless requested by the client; reminding its brokerages and agents of their obligation to show properties regardless of compensation for buyers’ agents for properties that meet the buyer’s priorities; and developing training materials for its brokerages and agents that support all the practice changes outlined in the injunctive relief. While most of the industry-wide antitrust class action lawsuits launched by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of home sellers have been settled (although appeals challenging the settlements are still pending), including those against the Company, certain suits launched by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of home buyers are still pending. In November 2023, individual plaintiffs filed an action on behalf of a putative national class of home buyers from 1996 to the present in the Northern District of Illinois against certain real estate brokerage firms (the Batton II case), including the Company, alleging anticompetitive behavior similar to the now resolved Gibson case. In June 2024, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action against the Company without prejudice. However, on June 11, 2024, plaintiffs’ counsel from the Batton II case added the Company as a defendant in the Lutz case pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 4:24-cv-10040 (KMM). This case was brought by individual plaintiffs who filed an action on behalf of a putative national class of home buyers from December 1996 through the present against certain real estate brokerage firms, now including the Company, alleging anticompetitive behavior in violation of federal antitrust laws, state antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as asserting an unjust enrichment claim. The allegations and claims in the Lutz case are similar to the Batton case. As this case was brought by a putative national class of home buyers, it is not subsumed within the Settlement Agreement resolving the antitrust actions brought by home sellers against the Company, except to the extent that the class includes home buyers who also are part of the home sellers settling class referenced above that released their claims as home buyers. The Company has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes for these industry-wide home buyer antitrust class action lawsuits as management concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of any pending industry-wide home buyer antitrust class action lawsuits. Two real estate salespersons formerly associated with the Company as independent contractors, have, together or separately, been named as defendants in multiple complaints by women accusing them of sexual assault and related wrongdoing, and face criminal charges related to similar alleged conduct. Recently, the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer were named as defendants in one of these lawsuits. Plaintiffs have brought claims against the Company under the New York Gender-Motivated Violence Act and sex trafficking, negligence, and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims. The Company denies liability and intends to defend vigorously against these claims. The Company is aware that other claims may be asserted against it and possibly against certain former Company leadership arising out of the matters related to the two former real estate salespersons. Litigation is subject to uncertainty, and it is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending cases or that more cases, including antitrust lawsuits, could be commenced. With the commencement of any new case, the defense costs and the risks relating to the unpredictability of litigation increase. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred. Management reviews on a quarterly basis with counsel all pending litigation and evaluates the probability of a loss being incurred and whether an estimate can be made of the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the financial impact of these litigation matters. For the years ended December 31, 2024, 2023 and 2022, the Company incurred legal expenses and costs totaling $41,522 (of which $17,750 is included within “Antitrust litigation settlement expense” and $23,772 is included within “General and administrative expenses” on the consolidated statements of operations), $7,549, and $7,064, respectively. The Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be materially adversely affected from an unfavorable outcome in, or settlement of, any of these matters. Accounting Policy. The Company and its subsidiaries record provisions in their consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when they determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated.