O
n the opening day of the preliminary injunction hearing in the Compass v. Zillow case, the courtroom in the Southern District of New York became a battleground for two real‑estate titans. The hearing, which began on November 18, will decide whether Zillow must lift its ban on certain Compass listings while the lawsuit proceeds.
**The Stakes**
Zillow’s new Listing Access Standards, rolled out in April, prohibit listings that are marketed to consumers but not widely available through the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). The policy was widely seen as a response to the surge of private listings championed by Compass and other large brokerages. In June, Compass sued Zillow, alleging that the portal was abusing its monopoly power. The company now seeks a preliminary injunction to stop Zillow from enforcing the ban during litigation.
**Compass’s Argument**
Attorney Kenneth Dintzer opened for Compass, painting Zillow as a monopolistic regulator. He cited Zillow’s own internal strategy documents and investor presentations to argue that the portal’s standards were designed to crush the threat posed by Compass’s private‑listing strategy and that of other brokers following suit. Dintzer claimed that Zillow had enlisted Redfin to join in a boycott of Compass listings, citing Redfin’s pledge to follow Zillow’s lead just four days after the standards were announced. He also referenced a partnership between Zillow and Redfin on rental listings as evidence of a quid pro quo conspiracy.
Dintzer argued that the ban had already caused irreparable harm to Compass. He pointed to a drop in unique visitors to Compass.com after Zillow’s announcement, though he admitted that measuring growth on the site was difficult. He also cited an email from a Compass client who avoided private exclusives because she feared being banned from Zillow, using it to illustrate damage to Compass’s reputation and its three‑phase marketing program. For consumers, Dintzer claimed that the loss of competition harmed buyers and sellers alike, echoing statements from Compass CEO Robert Reffkin.
**Zillow’s Counter**
Zillow’s attorney Bonnie Lau countered that the case was about whether the court could compel Zillow to promote its rivals’ businesses on its own website. She argued that Zillow’s standards apply only to listings on its platform and that they encourage all brokerages to share listings with the MLS and other online home‑search sites. Lau emphasized that Compass remains free to differentiate itself with exclusive content and that other portals—eXp, Redfin, Realtor.com, Homes.com, and thousands more—continue to display Compass listings that are no longer shown on Zillow. She noted that some of these sites even boost those listings.
Lau also challenged Compass’s claims of lasting damage. She pointed out that Compass still promotes its three‑phase marketing strategy and that the CEO had recently stated that the strategy had not been harmed by Zillow’s standards. According to Lau, Zillow’s policies had no impact on competition in the online home‑search market.
**Key Points from the Hearing**
1. **Preliminary Injunction Decision**
The judge will decide whether Zillow must accept Compass listings that were initially promoted as office exclusives while the case is pending.
2. **Scope of the Standards**
Zillow argues the standards apply only to its own website, not to other search portals. Compass contends that the standards effectively act as a de facto boycott.
3. **Collusion Allegations**
Compass alleges that Zillow and Redfin colluded to enforce the ban, citing Redfin’s quick compliance and a partnership on rental listings.
4. **Impact on Compass**
Compass claims a measurable decline in traffic and reputational harm, while Zillow maintains that the impact is negligible and that Compass’s marketing strategy remains intact.
5. **Consumer Harm**
Compass asserts that reduced competition harms buyers and sellers, whereas Zillow argues that its standards promote broader listing visibility across multiple platforms.
**Background Context**
Zillow’s Listing Access Standards were introduced to address the growing trend of private listings, which allow brokers to market homes directly to consumers without listing them on the MLS. Compass’s strategy of private exclusives was seen as a direct challenge to Zillow’s dominance in the online search market. The lawsuit alleges that Zillow’s policies unfairly restrict competition and constitute an abuse of monopoly power.
**Courtroom Dynamics**
Dintzer used battlefield metaphors, describing Zillow as a dominant player that “squashed” competitors. He highlighted Zillow’s market strength and alleged agreements with Redfin as evidence of a coordinated effort to suppress Compass. Lau, on the other hand, framed Zillow’s actions as standard industry practice, emphasizing that the standards are applied uniformly and that other platforms continue to list Compass properties.
**Implications for the Industry**
The outcome of the preliminary injunction will have far-reaching consequences. If Zillow is forced to lift the ban, it could signal a shift toward greater openness in listing practices. Conversely, a ruling that upholds the ban would reinforce Zillow’s ability to set industry standards and potentially deter other brokers from pursuing private‑listing strategies.
**Next Steps**
The court will consider the arguments presented and any evidence submitted by both sides. The decision will be announced later this week, and the parties will continue to argue their positions as the case moves forward. The real‑estate community will be watching closely, as the ruling could reshape how listings are shared and marketed across the industry.
