In a high-profile legal battle that could reshape how Americans buy and sell homes online, real estate brokerage Compass has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Zillow, the dominant online real estate platform. The case, Compass, Inc. v. Zillow, Inc. et al, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 23, 2025, accuses Zillow of monopolistic practices that limit consumer choice and hinder competition in the digital real estate space.
The Lawsuit: Compass Takes Aim at the “Zillow Ban”
At the heart of the lawsuit is Zillow’s newly implemented policy—dubbed the “Zillow Ban” by Compass—which prohibits any home from being listed on Zillow or its affiliate platforms, including Trulia, if it was not listed on Zillow within 24 hours after it’s marketed to consumers. Compass argues that this policy is a retaliatory move designed to preserve Zillow’s market dominance by excluding private or “off-market” listings promoted by rival brokerages.
Compass, which leads the U.S. in home sales by volume, has in recent months promoted its “Private Exclusives” program, allowing Compass agents and clients to access listings not publicly shared on platforms like Zillow. The brokerage says these types of listings offer unique advantages to sellers, such as testing pricing strategies and gathering buyer feedback before formally entering the public market. Zillow’s response, however, has been to permanently ban such listings from its site—an act Compass claims is exclusionary and anticompetitive.
Zillow counters that its policy supports a more transparent and accessible market for consumers. In a statement, the company said that hiding listings from public view “undermines an open market,” and that maximum exposure is ultimately in the best interest of both buyers and sellers.
The Antitrust Argument: Market Power and Monetization
Compass alleges that Zillow’s ban on delayed listings is not a neutral policy but a calculated move to stifle competition and protect its revenue model. Zillow generates substantial income by selling buyer and seller leads to real estate agents; when a home is listed off-Zillow, the company loses the opportunity to monetize that listing. According to Compass’s lawsuit, “Zillow cannot make money” from homes that are not quickly syndicated to its platform, prompting the company to “block real estate search rivals like Compass from competing head-to-head.”
The lawsuit points to Zillow’s substantial market share and monthly traffic—currently over 227 million unique visitors—as proof of its gatekeeper status. Compass argues that, much like Google in search or Amazon in e-commerce, Zillow’s platform is so ubiquitous in the homebuying process that a ban from its ecosystem effectively erases a listing from public awareness.
Adding complexity to the case is Zillow’s alignment with the National Association of Realtors (N.A.R.) policy from 2019, which required agents to input new home listings into an MLS feed within 24 hours of any public marketing. While N.A.R. has since softened this rule to allow for more flexibility, certain real estate listing companies like Zillow and Redfin have opted to enforce stricter standards independently, with Redfin implementing a near-identical policy shortly after Zillow’s announcement.
The Bigger Picture: Transparency vs. Exclusivity in Real Estate
The dispute underscores a deeper philosophical divide in the real estate industry. On one side, companies like Zillow and Redfin argue that widespread listing visibility promotes a more competitive and equitable marketplace. Zillow’s executive Errol Samuelson emphasized that “real estate works best in the open—not behind closed doors.” He believes that transparency leads to stronger offers, better outcomes, and fewer market inefficiencies.
On the other side, Compass and other brokerages advocate for seller flexibility and market experimentation. They argue that private or “pocket” listings, while limited in exposure, can offer strategic advantages—especially in a volatile housing market. In cases involving luxury properties, as-is sales, or privacy concerns, sellers may prefer a more controlled rollout. Moreover, Compass contends that withholding listings from Zillow, even temporarily, gives brokerages more room to innovate and compete on service rather than just platform exposure.
Consumer advocates and smaller brokerages have expressed concerns that such exclusivity could fragment the housing market. If large brokerages maintain separate networks of private listings, buyers may need to work with multiple agents just to view a full range of properties—raising questions about fairness and accessibility.
What’s at Stake: Legal, Market, and Consumer Impacts
In this lawsuit, Compass is asking the court to preliminarily enjoin Zillow from enforcing its so-called “Zillow Ban” and similar policies, while also seeking damages and a jury trial. The outcome of this case could reshape how digital real estate platforms operate and how brokerages compete in an increasingly tech-driven housing market.
With home sales slowing, inventory rising, and competition heating up, the stakes are high for buyers, sellers, and brokers alike. The lawsuit raises critical questions about market access, consumer choice, and the boundaries of fair competition under federal antitrust law. This article may be updated as the case develops.
If your business is navigating complex antitrust issues or business disputes, the attorneys at Romano Law are here to help. Contact us today to protect your rights and position in a changing marketplace.
Contribution to this blog by Emily O’Neill.
