Zillow and Compass dominated the news in 2025, with their disagreements over the National Association of Realtors’ clear collaboration policy ultimately leading to an antitrust lawsuit with far-reaching implications for both companies’ strategies.
Here’s a quick timeline of how this rivalry started, how it developed last year, and what it’ll do this year (hint: we don’t know).
Fall 2024: Conflict begins to take shape
The seeds of Compass and Zillow’s legal battle were sown in October 2024, when the National Association of Realtors shared that its Emerging Issues Advisory Committee would begin discussing the future of Clear Cooperation. The policy, which requires brokers to submit listings to their multiple listing services within one business day of selling a property to the public, was controversial from the start, but faded into the background during Sitzer’s discussion. Barnett Buyers Brokers Commission Litigation.
However, NAR’s announcement brought CCP back to the forefront and sparked a heated debate among major players in the industry. Zillow and Compass, respected and well-resourced giants in their respective fields, have become key representatives of opposing sides in the debate.
Zillow, on the other hand, argued that removing the office’s exclusivity exemption should protect and strengthen the Chinese Communist Party.
“We never expected this to become such a big issue,” Zillow CEO Jeremy Waxman told Mike Delprete in October 2024. “For us, it’s clear that private listing networks are bad. Bad for buyers, bad for sellers, and ultimately bad for agents, right?”
Meanwhile, Compass CEO Robert Refkin claimed that the Chinese Communist Party is restricting homeowners’ choices, introducing ethical violations and penalizing homes for “negative insights” such as days on the market and price declines. Compass also launched a three-phase marketing plan that will see listings begin to enter the market as private and exclusive products.
“At some point in the future of real estate in this country, I think people are going to be coming to Compass to look for properties, they’re going to go to the MLS to find properties, they’re going to go to one or two aggregators to find properties,” Levkin said during a November 2024 earnings call. “But it’s no different than most other products you’d want to buy.”
March: NAR decided
Discussions over explicit cooperation extended to 2025. In March, NAR finally chose a middle path and added a “delayed marketing exclusion listing option” that allows home sellers and their agents to delay public marketing of their properties while maintaining CCP.
Zillow and Compass leaders issued a statement after the announcement, saying NAR’s decision “reinforced” and “recognized” their respective positions.
“NAR’s decision to maintain clear cooperation policies, including requiring seller disclosure forms for office-only products and pre-marketing, reinforces what we have known for years: Withholding listings from the MLS and restricting competition behind velvet ropes reduces transparency and disadvantages buyers, sellers, and agents,” Errol Samuelson, Zillow’s chief industry development officer, said at the time.
“The expanded choice means NAR still doesn’t let homeowners choose exactly how to market their home, but this is a small step in the right direction,” Levkin said. “While the MLS should not restrict in any way how homeowners can advertise their homes, by offering unlimited public marketing for a longer period of time, such as 30 days, the MLS reduces legal risk and gives homeowners the more choice they need and deserve.”
April: Zillow announces ban
Two weeks after NAR announced its updated and clear cooperation policy, Zillow has clarified its listing access standards rules.
This rule, often characterized as a “ban,” meant that Zillow would not display listings that were for sale to the public but had not been added to the local MLS or made available on the portal within 24 hours of the sale. Zillow said “coming soon” listings, office exclusives and delayed marketing exemption listings are allowed under its rules, as long as listing brokers follow NAR’s guidance for each listing status.
The portal said it would send two violation notices to agencies before banning the listing. From then on, the only way a listing will appear on Zillow is if it is retired and relisted under another compliant broker.
“The idea is that both buyers and sellers benefit when they have free access to all the information about the market,” Samuelson told Inman in April. “You have to choose how you market your listing.”
When Zillow announced its rules, industry players were quick to take sides. EXp Realty and NextHome, among others, supported Zillow and said they would abide by the portal’s standards. Others, however, voiced their disapproval, including CoStar Group CEO Andy Florance, who agreed with Levkin that Zillow was overstepping the rules.
June: Compass throws a challenge
Tensions between Zillow and Compass reached a climax in the spring when the brokerage filed an antitrust complaint against the portal on June 23. Compass alleges that Zillow employed “anticompetitive tactics to protect its monopoly and profits in violation of antitrust laws,” and pointed to Zillow’s listing ban as a key example of Zillow’s alleged antitrust violations.
The complaint alleges that Zillow’s listing access standards are an attempt to enhance the portal’s revenue by eliminating seller choice and stifling competitive marketing models.
“For Zillow, having homebuyer searches conducted on Compass instead of Zillow means Zillow loses the opportunity to make money by locking prospective homebuyers into Zillow’s ecosystem and selling that information to real estate agents for lead fees, which is Zillow’s core business model,” the complaint says.
Zillow executives disputed Compass’ claims, arguing that the listing policy is in place to protect market transparency for agents and consumers.
“Listing suppression creates market fragmentation, limits consumer choice, and creates barriers to homeownership, which is bad for buyers, sellers, and the industry as a whole, especially in this inventory- and affordability-constrained environment,” the company said in June.
On June 27, Compass filed for a preliminary injunction to prevent Zillow from enforcing its rules while the case progresses in court. The injunction alleged that Zillow’s listing access standards caused irreparable harm to Compass, which remains committed to a three-tiered marketing approach. In Compass’ filing, the brokerage accused the portal of conspiring to “stifle Compass’ market innovation.”
Days later, Zillow filed a response defending its listing access standards and refuting claims that the rules caused Compass “irreparable harm.” Zillow accused Compass of erecting “new barriers for buyers” and pushing for a “more frustrating and inefficient” consumer experience.
November: Take the witness stand
The case progressed slowly over the next few months, but things heated up in November during a four-day evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction.
The hearing examined months of internal communications regarding the Clear Commission, Listing Access Standard, private networks and corporate strategy. Compass Co-Founder and CEO Robert Reffkin, Zillow Group Chief Industrial Development Officer Errol Samuelson, Zillow CEO Jeremy Wacksman, Zillow CFO Jeremy Hofmann, and Compass Senior Vice President of Strategy and Business Operations Ashton Alexander took to the stage.
Among other things, the hearing highlighted Zillow’s plans to encourage industry players to follow its standards, its proposed partnership with Compass, and communications discussing whether its three-tier marketing strategy violates Zillow’s rules.
The hearing also delved into the fine line between antitrust law, monopolistic power, and the exercise of veto power and anticompetitive conduct.
Read the entire hearing breakdown here
After the hearing, both companies submitted two post-hearing briefs summarizing their claims.
Zillow disputed the claims of irreparable harm, saying Compass’s record second and third quarter financial results show the policy did not have a material impact on the brokerage’s bottom line, and argued that if it had, Compass would have disclosed the same in its quarterly earnings report and Anywhere acquisition plan documents.
Meanwhile, Compass said Zillow’s ban reduced its use of three-tier marketing from 39 percent to 22 percent from April to July, hurting brand visibility and equity by reducing traffic to Compass’ sites and causing the intermediary to halt a national billboard campaign focused on private exclusive products. Brokers said the policy would also harm home sellers by limiting marketing options and preventing other brokers from developing innovative marketing solutions.
2026: Who knows?
The judge has not yet ruled on the preliminary injunction. However, a decision is expected to be made early this year.
Email Marian McPherson
