This is a state-level law. And real estate agent lobbying is extremely powerful. I don't see it changing any time soon.
This lawsuit is interesting because as the article states... this is the first time a highly credible law firm has taken on the NAR. The courts are definitely a better place to fight because the lawmakers are easily influenced by powerful lobbyists.
However, having met an exceptional agent, I would gladly pay this fee than deal with long term non-obvious issues that come with a property and then being upset with everyone involved in the purchase of the house. I don't think my "friends" know enough about what to look for in a house to recommend whether it is a good or a bad purchase for me. There's more to than just showing a property around to a buyer.
Also, all the marketing that a seller's agent does to sell the property, including renting furniture, artwork, presentation, print material, etc. is going out of that 3%. There's also an agency fee that the agent pays out of that 3%.
The fees are fixed w.r.t. the price of the home, but the agent is exposed to the risk of how much work is involved in getting a buyer/seller pair matched up. Both agents can be on the hook for some time -- houses may not sell for a while, or either buyer/seller decide to stop trying to transact. That's sunk cost by the agents.
So if you're not asking very much of the agent, or giving much risk to them, it's not worth 6%. But that risk has to be accounted for somewhere, and spread across clients like any other risk.
Also, if you're doing a sale + purchase, you can usually negotiate that 6% down with your agent.