Active: Federal lawsuit challenges illegal office requirement in Nevada

Entrepreneurship, innovation, and real estate are a part of Derek Eisenberg’s DNA. He grew up in a family of homebuilders and entered the real estate industry straight out of grad school. He began appraising in the 1990s and later joined several private property sale databases known as the Multiple Listing Services or MLS, in Mid-Atlantic and New England states.  

During the dot-com boom, Derek launched Continental Real Estate, a totally online brokerage offering flexible, cost-effective services. Customers can choose entire full-service packages or select only the specific services they need. 

As Derek explains, “A traditional broker might only sell a Cadillac, whereas we sell a stripped-down Chevy with crank windows, no AC and only an AM radio and let customers add the options they want.” 

Derek hopes to expand to all 50 states. Standing in the way, however, are several states’ requirements that brokers maintain physical offices within their borders—a completely antiquated condition as modern technology makes local offices unnecessary. These laws are mere protectionism, meant to protect in-state incumbents by discouraging market entry and blocking intrastate online services by out-of-state competitors. The result is fewer realtors and higher consumer prices. 

Nevada is one such state. In addition to requiring real estate brokers to conduct business at their in-state office, Nevada’s requirement triggers a host of other costs. For example, cities, towns, and counties are allowed to demand a separate license for those with offices in the locality. For Derek, it means he must be licensed by both county and state. 

These requirements aren’t just outdated. They’re unconstitutional. They deny both Derek’s opportunity to do business and Nevadans’ opportunity to access innovative, cost-saving services. 

Represented by Pacific Legal Foundation free of charge, Derek is defending his right to earn a living in Nevada, free of the government’s unjust economic protectionism. 

In the meantime, Derek’s fight extends beyond the Silver State. He is currently challenging a similar requirement in West Virginia and stands ready to contest other states’ burdensome laws that unfairly separate people from opportunity. 

What’s At Stake?

  • Subjecting entrepreneurs like Derek Eisenberg to burdensome conditions simply because of geographic location is discriminatory and denies opportunities for both entrepreneurs and consumers alike.
  • Requiring businesses to have a brick-and-mortar office in order to operate is protectionism, pure and simple.

Case Timeline

December 19, 2024
PLF Complaint
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada

FOR MEDIA INQUIRIES:

CASES AND COMMENTARY IN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM. SENT TO YOUR INBOX.

Subscribe to the biweekly Docket for dispatches from the front lines.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.