From Zillow:
A new Wall Street Journal opinion essay argues that a legal dispute Compass initiated with Zillow turns less on monopoly power than on whether home listings should be widely visible to consumers. In the piece, business law professor Nicholas Creel describes Compass’s use of private listings as a system built on limiting access to housing information.
“Compass, the nation’s largest residential real-estate brokerage, has a pitch for home buyers: Sign with us, and you’ll see homes nobody else can,” the professor writes in the Journal. “The company maintains a growing inventory of ‘Private Exclusives’ — properties marketed only through its own platforms, invisible to anyone searching on Zillow, Realtor.com or competing portals. The implicit message is simple: If you want full access to the housing market, you have no choice but to come to us.”
He argues that the approach is not innovation but rather “manufactured scarcity designed to coerce consumers into a single brokerage’s ecosystem.”
The dispute centers on Zillow’s Listing Access Standards, which require that any home marketed publicly be placed on the multiple listing service and shared broadly within one business day. Compass sued over the standards, alleging Zillow was using monopoly power to undermine a competing model, but a federal judge recently rejected that argument.
In a decision issued in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas denied Compass’ request for a preliminary injunction, writing that the company had not shown Zillow possessed monopoly power — a ruling the professor says exposed deeper weaknesses in the case.
“To prevail on its antitrust claims, Compass must prove that Zillow is a monopoly in a relevant market. But what market, exactly?” the essay asks, describing online home search as “vast and fragmented,” with multiple platforms competing for users and consumers typically checking several sites.
Creel frames Zillow’s listing policy as rooted in broad consumer access.
“Zillow’s policy is straightforward: If a listing appears anywhere online, it should appear everywhere online,” he writes. “That principle serves buyers by ensuring equal access to inventory regardless of which brokerage or search tool they use. Compass wants a court to override this policy not because it harms consumers, but because it interferes with a business strategy that benefits realtors at the expense of home buyers.”
The essay argues that limited listing visibility can disadvantage buyers by reducing transparency and competition. “By the time everyone else walks in, the best properties may already be under contract,” the professor writes of private listing periods, likening the system to “a private presale for preferred clients before opening the doors to the general public.”
