03
When the money moved the recommendation
Case 01Insurance brokerage · 2004–2012
The case with the internal documents
This is the strongest case in the study because the steering is established from the firm’s own communications rather than inferred.
Fact. On October 14, 2004, the New York Attorney General sued Marsh & McLennan, alleging it steered clients to insurers with which it held lucrative contingency agreements and solicited rigged bids. The complaint stated Marsh collected approximately $800 million in contingent commissions in 2003. By the firm’s own admission the 2003 figure was $845 million.
Fact. The complaint quoted internal messages. One senior executive wrote that the firm needed to place business with insurers that “pay us the most.” Another noted that the size of contingent commissions would determine who business was steered to and steered from.
Fact. On January 31, 2005, Marsh established an $850 million restitution fund, apologized for conduct it called shameful and unlawful, and took a $618 million pre-tax charge. Aon settled for $190 million and Willis for $50 million. The chief executive had resigned in October 2004. Three thousand jobs went in November.
Contingent commissions varied by carrier. A corporate risk manager believed the broker was searching the market as its agent. Both conditions, present at once.
Then the part almost nobody remembers
Fact. In February 2010, officials in New York, Illinois, and Connecticut amended the settlement agreements and released Aon, Willis, and Marsh to accept contingent commissions again for the first time since January 1, 2005. The release was conditioned on the three firms complying nationwide with a new New York regulation requiring all producers, regardless of size, to disclose their compensation to customers on request. Regulators noted the new standard was in some respects lower than what the three had been operating under since 2005.
Seller payment survived. Hidden, steering-capable payment did not. Sixteen years later the model is still running.
And then the firms drew their own line
Fact. After the ban lifted, Marsh declined contingent commissions in its core US brokerage business while accepting them in its agency, affinity, and consumer businesses. Aon said it would take them where appropriate and legally permissible. Willis refused them in retail property and casualty, then began accepting them on employee benefits in 2012.
The largest firm in the industry, handed legal permission to take the money everywhere, took it in the distribution businesses and refused it in the advisory business. Nobody required that. It is the single most instructive fact in the cohort.
Limitation worth holding onto. The Marsh case involved bid rigging alongside contingent commissions, and those are separate offenses. Contemporaneous academic commentary argued that contingent commissions absent bid rigging promote competition among insurers. The case is used here for the documented steering mechanism, and the 2010 restoration is decent evidence the compensation form is not inherently harmful.
Case 02Mortgage brokerage · pre-2011
Where the regulator drew the structural line
Fact. Before 2011, mortgage brokers commonly received a yield spread premium, a lender payment that increased with the interest rate on the loan placed. Borrowers frequently also paid the broker an upfront fee without understanding that the lender was separately paying a premium that rose with the rate.
RESPA and TILA disclosure regimes had governed this market for decades while that was happening.
Fact. In 2010 the Federal Reserve amended Regulation Z, effective April 1, 2011, to prohibit loan originator compensation based on any term or condition of a transaction other than the loan amount, to prohibit dual compensation from both the consumer and another party on the same loan, and to prohibit steering toward loans producing greater originator compensation. Dodd-Frank codified the prohibition. The CFPB’s 2013 final rule defines a term of a transaction as any right or obligation of the parties, and states that a broker cannot be compensated based on the interest rate or on steering a consumer toward affiliated title insurance.
The regulator did not ban seller payment. It banned seller payment that moved with the recommendation.
Fact, and a real cost. Industry groups have argued the remedy overshot, because the rule restricts compensation practices for lenders’ own employees rather than only third-party brokers, and prohibits essentially all variation except by loan amount. Structural remedies are blunter than disclosure. That is the price of being administrable.
Case 03Residential real estate · 2023–2024
Corroboration, briefly
Fact. In October 2023 a Missouri jury returned a $1.78 billion antitrust verdict in Sitzer/Burnett against the National Association of Realtors and several brokerages over the MLS cooperative compensation rule. NAR settled in March 2024 for $418 million, agreeing to prohibit offers of compensation being made on the MLS, to prohibit requiring listing brokers to make them, and to require written buyer agreements specifying compensation before touring a property. Practice changes took effect August 17, 2024.
Seller contribution to buyer-agent compensation survived. What went was the shared system that displayed a variable amount to the agent before showings, plus the absence of a written buyer agreement.
Restraint on this one. This was an antitrust case about a horizontal rule, not a trust case. The compensation structure is the through-line, and the remedy shape is the useful part.
Case 04Pharmacy benefit managers · 2022–present
The terminal form
Fact. The FTC’s July 2024 interim staff report, from Section 6(b) orders issued in 2022, found that the six largest pharmacy benefit managers manage nearly 95 percent of US prescriptions, and that some manufacturer rebates were expressly conditioned on limiting access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar competitors.
Fact. The January 2025 second interim report found that PBM-affiliated pharmacies generated more than $7.3 billion of revenue above estimated acquisition costs during the study period, and that the three largest PBMs generated an estimated $1.4 billion from spread pricing.
Every element is present at maximum intensity. Compensation varies by product. The intermediary controls the formulary that determines the product. The plan sponsor cannot observe the variance. And the intermediary has integrated into the seller side, so steering to itself is the most profitable outcome.