Two weeks after going head-to-head in a four-day evidentiary hearing over Zillow’s private listing policy, the court has given Zillow and Compass one more chance to make their case through a set of post-hearing filings.
The documents — filed at the end of last week — summarize each party’s argument, and the laws and legal precedent that support those arguments. The filings will help Judge Jeanette Vargas decide whether Zillow’s ban has caused Compass irreparable harm and, if so, whether to stop Zillow from enforcing it as Compass’ antitrust lawsuit against the portal giant works its way through the courts.
Zillow’s post-hearing filing argued against Compass’ antitrust claim, saying that the portal giant is within its rights to create and enforce a listing ban, per the Federal Trade Commission’s guidelines that say a company has the general right to decline to do business with another company, as long as it doesn’t harm competition.
- Zillow said Compass’ record-breaking second- and third-quarter financial results show the policy had no material impact on the brokerage’s bottom line — and argued that if it had, Compass would have disclosed as much in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings for quarterly earnings and its proposed acquisition of Anywhere.
- The portal also argued that any decline in Compass’ three-phase marketing plan — which sees some listings begin their lifecycle off market — doesn’t necessarily mean the brokerage lost listings. It only means that sellers, when given their options, decided not to take that route.
- Zillow said it didn’t coordinate its policy with Redfin, whose CEO, Glenn Kelman, learned of it one business day before the public announcement on April 10. Redfin announced its own version of the rule on April 14; however, company leaders decided not to enforce it.
- Zillow said the policy actually benefits the market by preventing the fragmentation of listings, which would harm homebuyers and homesellers who rely on timely, accurate market information to make decisions.
The portal said a preliminary injunction against its Listing Access Standards — the policy’s official name — would harm homebuyers and homesellers, who benefit from listings being displayed and marketed to the broadest possible audience. The filing also said the policy protects smaller brokerages, which cannot compete “on an even playing field” with Compass and other large brokerages with exclusive inventory.
Zillow said a preliminary injunction against the Listing Access Standards would infringe on its First Amendment rights by forcing it to display content that violates its values.
“Compass’ injunction would curtail Zillow’s right to curate the advertisements (listings) its platform carries, in violation of the First Amendment,” the filing read. “This harm is irreversible.”
READ INMAN’S FULL PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING RECAP
Meanwhile, Compass’ post-hearing filing focuses on the harm Zillow’s rule allegedly caused the brokerage’s three-phase marketing plan, which had previously experienced major growth in adoption. The brokerage said Zillow holds monopolistic market power in online home search and created the policy to eliminate competition based on unique inventory.
- Compass said a drop in adoption of its three-phase marketing plan proves the existence of anticompetitive harm. The three-phase plan reached 39 percent adoption by April 2025; however, use of the plan declined after Zillow’s April 10 announcement of its policy, dropping to 22 percent by July. That drop in exclusive inventory, the filing said, harmed Compass’ brand visibility and equity via reduced traffic to Compass’ site, and led the brokerage to scrap a nationwide billboard campaign focused on private exclusives.
- Although Zillow says its rule is enforced evenly, Compass claims Zillow has specifically targeted the brokerage. The filing presents non-compliance notice data showing that Compass listing agents have received the lion’s share of notices, and internal Zillow communications describing Compass as a bad actor that is “[a]gitating throughout the industry.”
- The brokerage argues that Zillow’s policy restricts homeseller choice and listing agents’ ability to market a home as their seller wishes. Compass also argues the rule discourages other brokerages from creating innovative marketing solutions.
- Compass’ filing further pushes back against Zillow’s refusal-to-deal argument, saying that the portal’s rule puts limitations on its consumers (i.e., homesellers and agents) and not its fellow competitors (i.e., other portals).
The brokerage said it believes it has thoroughly established the need for a preliminary injunction, as the Listing Access Standards have caused Compass to lose its first-mover advantage, diminished goodwill and reputation, and business opportunities, in addition to harming homesellers who want to use the three-phase plan.
“Finally, the public interest would best be served by the injunction,” the filing read. “When evaluating this factor, a court must ensure that the public interest would not be disserved by the injunction. In antitrust cases, protecting the public from a potential antitrust violation cuts strongly in favor of the injunction.”
Judge Vargas will use these filings to make a final decision about the preliminary injunction, which could come as soon as this month.
Read the full filings below:
