D
uring the preliminary injunction hearing in Compass v. Zillow, Compass CEO Robert Reffkin framed the dispute as an “us versus them” battle. He painted Zillow, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and MLSs as the “takers” who impose restrictive rules, while real‑estate agents are the “workers” doing the actual business. Reffkin noted that Compass supplies more listings to Zillow than any other brokerage, yet Zillow offers none in return and profits from the “contact agent” button, charging thousands for each click buyers are unaware of.

    Reffkin explained Compass’s three‑phase marketing (3PM) strategy, saying the first phase is called a “private exclusive.” He insisted the term is merely a brand; the listings are accessible to anyone who calls or visits a Compass office, and buyers need not work with a Compass agent. The name “private” is used because sellers like the idea of exclusivity.

    The core of the lawsuit is Zillow’s ban on 3PM listings. Reffkin said agents are terrified of marketing a home on Zillow or sharing private listings, fearing a ban. He claimed Zillow’s new Listing Access Standards (LAS) were not explained to Compass for months, but evidence shows an email from Zillow to Compass’s SVP on April 15—just five days after the LAS announcement—highlighting a problem with Compass’s “black box” section.

    Reffkin argued the ban harmed Compass by slowing 3PM adoption and forcing the company to abandon a billboard campaign that could have increased traffic and agent recruitment. He described the loss as “unquantifiable.”

    During cross‑examination, Zillow attorney Bonnie Lau probed Reffkin’s knowledge of Compass’s online presence. Reffkin admitted he did not know Compass’s market share in online search or how it tracks visitors to other portals. He also said he did not know what “3PS” was, though he did not dispute a statement that Compass had not forecasted earnings from its home‑search platform. Lau questioned the financial impact of the ban, noting Compass’s strong third‑quarter earnings after Zillow began enforcing the policy.

    Reffkin maintained that Compass’s “private exclusives” are not truly private, that Zillow’s policies unfairly target agents, and that the lawsuit seeks to protect agents’ ability to market homes without fear of retaliation.