Zillow sues MRED and Compass for conspiring to hide home listings from buyers and restrict competition

Zillow filed a federal antitrust lawsuit on May 12 against Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED), a multiple listing service serving the greater Chicago area and parts of three neighboring states, and Compass, the country’s largest real estate brokerage. 

MRED and Compass are colluding to hide home listings from buyers — and conspired to punish Zillow for not going along with it.

“Defendants conspired to threaten to cut off Zillow’s and any other competitors’ access to all listings — a critical input for competition in the industry — in a naked effort to coerce their competitors to abandon pro-transparency policies,” Zillow’s complaint states.

This conduct violates the Sherman Antitrust Act, the foundational federal law that prohibits competitors from colluding to harm competition and consumers.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Chicago, outlines how MRED and Compass worked together to threaten Zillow’s Chicagoland listing data feed. The goal was to pressure Zillow into participating in a scheme to hide home listings from certain buyers — an anti-consumer practice Zillow prohibits on its apps and sites.

Hidden listings harm buyers, sellers and agents by creating an unfair housing market. These listings can typically only be seen by buyers working with an agent from the brokerage representing the seller. MRED, as the monopolist controlling listing data across Chicagoland, has the power to entrench this practice across an entire region — and is now using that power to spread it across the country.

The illegal conspiracy

In April 2026, MRED and Compass announced a formal partnership to expand MRED’s private listing network nationwide. It allowed Compass agents anywhere in the country to enter listings into MRED’s system — supposedly to “protect” those listings from pro-transparency platforms like Zillow. The explicit purpose was to extend MRED’s monopoly leverage far beyond the Chicago region and force competitors nationwide to abandon consumer protections. 

MRED made good on the deal almost immediately. By early May 2026, MRED demanded that Zillow reinstate Compass private listings in states hundreds of miles outside MRED’s territory — listings from agents who had already been warned they were violating Zillow’s consumer standards. 

The same day, the technology provider that distributes MRED’s listing feed threatened to terminate Zillow’s access entirely if it did not comply. MRED CEO Rebecca Jensen also serves as chair of that distributor’s board of managers, meaning the same person controlled both the threat and the mechanism for carrying it out.

The message to Zillow was clear: display Compass private listings everywhere in the United States, or MRED will withhold all Chicagoland listings from consumers on Zillow.

One Compass agent publicly summarized the effects of the conspiracy: “MRED controls the data pipeline in Chicago. If Zillow bans those listings … they lose the market. So they don’t.“ Compass CEO Robert Reffkin responded: “Thank you MRED.“ With these comments and others like them, Compass openly admitted MRED was using its monopoly power to ensure Zillow could not protect consumers from the harms of hidden listing networks.

The conspiracy’s national ambitions were made explicit in a May 11 email from a Compass executive to the CEO of an MLS in North Carolina. In it, Compass asked the MLS to “rigorously enforce existing policies that prevent the rise of off-MLS databases“ — a direct reference to cutting off Zillow — by May 20. In exchange, Compass offered to keep its listings exclusively within that MLS’s territory. The complaint calls the May 20 deadline “highly suggestive of further communications between Defendants“ — noting that Compass was not copied on MRED’s May 6 threat to Zillow, yet independently referenced the same deadline.

Around the same time, Compass announced similar partnerships with Realtracs, a dominant listing feed provider for Tennessee-area MLSs, and The MLS/CLAW, a California-based MLS. Both adopted new rules mirroring what MRED set out to do, prohibiting platforms from excluding listings based on the identity of any participant, brokerage, or agent. 

The complaint lays out what MRED got out of the deal: Compass agreed to subsidize the cost of MRED membership for up to 100,000 Compass agents nationwide — a move that could triple MRED’s size and dramatically expand its power to impose its rules on the rest of the industry. In exchange, MRED agreed to use its monopoly over Chicagoland listing data as a weapon against any platform that dared adopt pro-transparency standards.

“A self-interested MLS would promote broad distribution of its publicly available listings and would not threaten to withhold those listings from feed recipients such as Zillow — which distributes them to tens of millions of consumers — in service of protecting a discrete percentage of listings that are privately marketed on MRED’s and Compass’ competing private listing networks,“ the complaint states.

The Sherman Act bars competitors from conspiring to harm a rival — what courts call a “group boycott.“ MRED and Compass compete with each other and with Zillow in the business of creating and distributing real estate listings. By joining forces to cut off Zillow’s access to listing data unless Zillow abandoned its consumer-protection standards, MRED and Compass crossed that line. 

The Sherman Act also bars an organization with monopoly power from using that power to crush competition. MRED is the only source of aggregated, up-to-date listing data for the Chicago region. Using that monopoly power to coerce Zillow — and to shield Compass’ private listing business from competition — is precisely the kind of conduct the antitrust law was designed to prevent.

How it started

When Zillow announced standards in April 2025 designed to protect buyers, sellers and agents from the harms of hidden listing schemes, the response from MRED and Compass was swift and aggressive: Rather than competing on merit, they went after Zillow’s access to listing data — and set in motion the conspiracy described above.

Compass’ CEO sent messages to at least eight regional MLSs around the country urging them to cut off Zillow’s data access. “MLS must discipline Zillow for its new rules,“ Reffkin wrote, “and if Zillow’s rules are not immediately repealed, you must block Zillow from IDX and VOW feeds.“ Those feeds are the data pipelines through which home listings are shared with platforms like Zillow, Redfin and Homes.com.

MRED, which has more than 43,000 members and processed more than 264,000 listings worth $43 billion in 2025, controls the flow of listing data across a wide swath of the Midwest. It went along with the plan.

Jensen and Reffkin shared a stage at an industry conference shortly after Zillow’s consumer standards were announced. Reffkin told Jensen the standards made MRED’s private listing network “impossible.“ Jensen responded by discussing listing feed rules — and months later, that’s exactly the lever MRED pulled.

Jensen told Zillow in October 2025 that MRED would cut off Zillow’s data access if Zillow applied its standards in the region. MRED then rewrote its rules to give itself a pretext for doing so. 

According to the complaint, “Jensen said to a Zillow representative that she was not backing down when it came to cutting off Zillow’s listing feed; the representative knew her well enough to know she was not bluffing; and she was the ‘referee’ and would continue to revise MRED’s rules ‘as needed’ to prevent Zillow from enforcing its standards.”

By January 2026, Compass had finalized its acquisition of Anywhere Real Estate — the nation’s second-largest brokerage, whose brands include Coldwell Banker, Century 21, Corcoran, and Sotheby's International Realty. This gave it what the U.S. Department of Justice has called a “presumptively unlawful“ market share in numerous markets. In Chicago, the deal took Compass's share of unit sales from 10.7% to 35% — more than four times the share of its next largest competitor. It was this dominance that gave Compass the leverage to influence a rulemaking body for its own gain.

The conspiracy was designed to send a signal to any platform considering pro-transparency standards. By February 2026, after MRED rewrote its rules, but months before MRED and Compass announced their national partnership, Redfin had quietly dropped its own transparency standards. The chilling effect was already working. (Redfin has since gone further, announcing a partnership to funnel buyers into Compass’ private listing network.) 

MRED and Compass ramped up their conspiracy after Zillow announced Zillow Preview, which lets sellers and their agents display pre-market listings publicly. Before those listings hit the MLS, Zillow Preview competes directly with the private listing networks operated by MRED and Compass, offering sellers broad exposure rather than a limited buyer pool. Starting this summer, Zillow Preview listings will also appear on Realtor.com. For MRED, whose monopoly over Chicagoland listing data depends on brokers having no viable alternative, Zillow Preview represented an existential competitive threat — not just a policy disagreement.

What followed was an escalating series of moves to squeeze Zillow as long as it continued to apply pro-transparency standards on its own platform. 

Compass and its affiliated brokerages terminated existing agreements to give Zillow direct listing feeds. On May 8, Compass went further, terminating all direct listing feed agreements with Zillow nationwide, on behalf of itself and every Compass brokerage entity or subsidiary. This cut off the pipelines Zillow had been assembling as a potential alternative to MRED. MRED sent messages to its member brokers asking them to report any conversations with Zillow and warning them that working with Zillow could violate MRED’s rules. MRED then sent an alert to all 43,000 of its members urging them not to provide Zillow with a direct listing feed.

The heart of the issue

The lawsuit is about a conspiracy between two powerful real estate entities: one of the nation’s largest MLSs and the largest brokerage. But they’re not just using their power to threaten Zillow or competition; they’re threatening every buyer and seller who depends on a fair, transparent and open housing market. That’s who bears the real brunt of this conspiracy.

Consumer advocacy groups and economic researchers have documented the harms of hidden listings extensively:

Worse outcomes for sellers. Broad exposure is the single biggest driver of a successful sale. It’s basic economics. More buyers competing for a home means more potential offers, better terms and faster closings. When a listing is hidden inside a private network, the seller never finds out what their home could have fetched on the open market.

Under the Compass “3-Phase Marketing Strategy,” a home is offered exclusively to Compass agents and clients first. Only after it fails to sell inside that closed network is the stale listing released to the public. Sellers and buyers bear the cost of that sequencing; the brokerage does not.

Fewer choices for buyers. The country is in the middle of a housing affordability crisis driven in large part by a shortage of available homes. Private listing networks shrink that supply further — not because fewer homes are for sale, but because powerful brokerages are deliberately hiding them from most buyers. 

This gives buyers a distorted view of what’s on the market and limits buyer choice by forcing them to hire an agent from the brokerage the seller is using. 

Even buyers who are able to bid on a privately listed home get an unfair shake — fewer competing bids mean weaker signals about a home’s true market value, making it harder to know whether they’re paying a fair price.

Conflicts of interest. Private listings benefit the brokerage, not the client. When the same firm represents both buyer and seller, it collects a commission on both sides — what the industry calls “double-ending.“ The seller thinks their agent is fighting for the best price, but in reality, the agent’s firm profits more from closing the deal within its own network than from finding the highest bidder on the open market. 

More than 20% of recent Compass transactions in five major markets were double-ended, including a rate of 24% in Chicago. An April 2026 report by the Consumer Policy Center (CPC) found that Compass was the leading double-ender among major brokerages in four of five cities studied. Compass’ own internal data shows its private listings double-end 72% more frequently than on-market transactions. That’s because Compass has built its business model around a scheme that locks out anyone who isn’t paying Compass in some way. “A private listing network is a vehicle to get paid by both sides,” the CPC report explains. The group concluded “this strategy appears key to [Compass’] high rates of double-ending sales.”

Fair housing and equity concerns. The harms of hidden listings fall hardest on buyers who are already at a disadvantage. 

“Research has shown that first-time, relocating, elderly, and underrepresented buyers are disproportionately excluded from access to private listings because they are less likely to have, or be able to afford, agents with an inside line to exclusive inventory,“ the complaint states. “They are also more susceptible to strategies that exploit information asymmetries already present in real estate markets.“ 

In communities of color, homes sold off the MLS in 2023–2024 typically sold for $9,850 less than MLS-listed homes — more than double the loss seen in majority-white neighborhoods. 

The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), the National Association of Real Estate Brokers (primarily representing Black brokers and agents) and the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals have all cited fair housing concerns related to “pocket listings” held inside private listing networks.

“Pocket listings can make it easy to support discrimination by shielding properties that are available for sale from most potential buyers,“ according to a 2019 NFHA report. “Sellers or real estate agents who want to engage in discrimination can use this tactic easily to hide properties from borrowers of color, in violation of both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fair Housing Act.“

Harm to agents and smaller brokerages. Private listing networks don’t just hurt buyers and sellers — they also disadvantage the thousands of independent agents and small brokerages that can’t build or maintain a private network of their own. When a few dominant players control the inventory and lock it away, agents from smaller brokerages can’t show those homes to their clients. The tilted playing field makes it harder for them to compete and survive.

Manufactured demand, not seller choice. Brokerages like Compass are steering sellers into listing privately. When sellers agree to the sales pitch, because they trust agents to serve their best interests, Compass calls this “seller choice.” 

But a recent consumer survey found that 68% of sellers felt their agent didn’t adequately explain the difference between listing on the MLS and listing privately. Agreeing to something that hasn’t been adequately explained, where the risks are buried in disclosure forms, isn’t really a choice.

That same survey found that 63% of home sellers say their agent pitched a private listing, compared with just 18% five years ago. Yet 81% believed their listing should be freely viewable online. As the complaint says, “It is the relentless and deceptive marketing of PLNs by Compass and others driving the rise of private listings, rather than legitimate consumer demand.”

Keeping the market fair

“The writing is on the wall,“ the complaint states. “If Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy is not enjoined, Defendants will work to ensure no portal dares to enact similar policies to ensure transparency in real estate.“

Zillow is asking the court to block MRED from enforcing its revised rules and from cutting off Zillow’s data access. It is also seeking treble damages and attorneys’ fees.

“Compass and MRED — two competitors in Listing Creation and Distribution — cannot conspire to boycott a competitor’s access to Chicagoland listings,” the complaint states. “And MRED cannot use its monopoly power over those listings as a cudgel to prevent a competitor from effectively competing in Chicagoland or beyond.”