C
ompass v. Zillow’s preliminary injunction hearing wrapped up on Nov. 21, leaving a judge to decide whether Zillow’s new Listing Access Standards can stay in force while the lawsuit continues. Zillow’s counsel, Eric Tuttle, argued that Compass failed to show any irreparable harm to its business or to the broader market. He stressed that the standards merely restrict listings that are public but not widely available through MLS or IDX feeds, and that Compass can still market through its 3‑phased marketing (3PM) strategy.

    Compass’s attorneys, Chahira Solh and Kenneth Dintzer, countered that Zillow’s policy amounts to a conspiracy with Redfin to suppress Compass’s differentiated marketing. They claimed the ban forces Compass to “sell its inventory to Zillow” or risk losing access, effectively stifling competition. The duo highlighted communications between Zillow CEO Jeremy Wacksman and Redfin CEO Glenn Kelman as evidence of collusion, noting that the discussion centered on the new listing standards and implied a shared strategy to disadvantage Compass.

    Judge Jeannette A. Vargas questioned the conspiracy claim, asking whether the actions were simply competitive responses to a common stimulus rather than an agreement. She also reminded the parties that Compass could continue to use 3PM and share listings with other portals, and that sellers retain the choice to pre‑market or list directly.

    Zillow’s side emphasized the need for an open marketplace. Tuttle warned that an injunction would fragment the market, reduce resources for consumers, and potentially worsen the home‑search experience. He argued that Compass’s quarterly results were strong and that the company could still grow its 3PM program despite the new standards. He dismissed any evidence of a partnership with Redfin, stating that Redfin’s policy was a competitive middle ground, not a coordinated boycott.

    Compass’s narrative framed Zillow as a monopolist using “collusion, industry‑changing rules, threats, financial penalties, and bans” to eliminate alternative marketing strategies. They claimed Zillow seeks to control the entire real‑estate industry, dictating how sellers market both on and off Zillow. Dintzer presented the April 9 call between Wacksman and Kelman, asserting that the discussion of listing standards constituted a “conscious commitment to a common scheme,” even without a written agreement.

    Both sides touched on the broader market impact. Zillow contended that no evidence showed market‑wide harm: no price increases, no reduced output, and no diminished consumer experience. Compass argued that the ban undermines its 3PM model, which relies on inventory, its website, and other integrated services, thereby limiting its ability to compete online.

    The judge’s next step will determine whether Zillow can enforce its Listing Access Standards while the case proceeds, and whether Compass’s claims of irreparable harm and conspiracy hold. The outcome will shape how private listings are treated on the platform and could influence competitive dynamics in the real‑estate search market.