Judge denies Compass injunction against Zillow listing policy
A
New
York
City-based
U.S.
District
Court
judge
has
denied
Compass’s
preliminary
injunction
motion
in
its
antitrust
lawsuit
against
Zillow.
As
a
result
of
Judge
Jeannette
Vargas’
ruling,
Zillow
may
continue
enforcing
its
listing
access
standard
policy,
which
bans
listings
from
its
site
that
have
been
publicly
advertised
for
more
than
one
business
day
prior
to
being
available
for
display
on
a
site
powered
by
an
IDX
or
VOW
data
feed.
Originally
filed
in
mid-June,
the
lawsuit
focuses
on
Zillow’s
listing
access
standards
policy,
which
went
into
effect
in
late
June.
Compass
filed
its
motion
for
preliminary
injunction
just
days
before
the
policy
was
set
to
take
effect.
“Today’s
decision
is
not
a
loss,
and
our
lawsuit
continues
forward.
In
Zillow’s
internal
strategy
document,
Zillow
said
Zillow
will
‘punish
the
agent
for
choosing
to
put
their
listings
on
alternative
networks.’
With
agents
being
our
clients,
we
have
an
obligation
to
protect
our
agents
from
Zillow,
which
explicitly
stated
they
are
trying
to
‘punish
the
agent’,”
Robert
Reffkin,
Compass
International
Holdings’s
chairman
and
CEO,
said
in
a
statement.
In
an
emailed
statement,
a
Zillow
spokesperson
called
the
ruling
a
“clear
victory”
for
Zillow,
but
also
for
“consumers,
agents,
brokerages
and
the
real
estate
industry
at
large.”
“Zillow
believes
everyone
deserves
equal
access
to
the
same
real
estate
information
at
the
same
time.
Compass
does
the
opposite
—
hiding
listings
away
in
its
private
vault,
harming
consumers
and
small
businesses
to
benefit
itself,”
the
spokesperson
wrote.
“Compass
filed
this
baseless
lawsuit
in
an
attempt
to
force
Zillow
to
participate
in
that
exclusionary
scheme
—
but
today,
the
United
States
District
Court
for
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
rejected
their
effort
to
reduce
transparency
for
consumers,
ruling
that
Compass
failed
to
show
a
likelihood
of
success
on
the
merits.
At
a
time
when
Americans
are
struggling
to
afford
a
home
amid
a
major
housing
shortage,
hiding
listings
in
private
networks
only
deepens
the
crisis.
While
Compass
keeps
consumers
in
the
dark,
Zillow
turns
on
the
lights
to
help
people
get
home.”
In
denying
Compass’s
motion,
Judge
Vargas
wrote
that
“Compass
has
not
shown
a
likelihood
of
success
on
the
merits,”
of
the
case
it
presented
during
the
hearing.
Due
to
this,
the
judge
felt
that
it
was
unnecessary
to
reach
the
question
of
the
policy
causing
Compass
irreparable
harm.
During
the
hearing,
an
expert
witness
for
Compass
testified
that
Zillow’s
policy
harms
competition
because
it
suppresses
competing
platforms,
which
Compass
claims
Compass.com
is.
Other
witnesses
for
Compass
testified
that
Zillow’s
policy
had
resulted
in
a
decline
in
both
engagement
and
users
on
its
platform,
and
that
the
enforcement
of
the
policy
has
resulted
in
a
lower
percentage
of
sellers
who
are
willing
to
use
Compass’s
three-phased
marketing
plan,
which
the
firm
maintains
harms
its
overall
revenue
and
performance.
However,
under
questioning
by
Zillow,
Soham
Bohnsle,
Compass’s
head
of
investor
relations,
confirmed
that
Compass
had
no
concrete
evidence
tying
the
three-phased
marketing
strategy
to
changes
in
revenue
and
that
despite
Compass’s
claims
that
the
policy
was
causing
irreparable
harm,
no
analyst
had
issued
a
“sell”
rating
on
Compass
stock.
Bohnsle
also
confirmed
that
Compass
has
continued
to
post
annual
revenue
gains
since
the
policy
was
announced.
While
the
ruling
is
only
related
to
Compass’s
preliminary
injunction
motion,
antitrust
experts
told
HousingWire
that
the
ruling
does
offer
a
peek
into
how
the
judge
is
viewing
this
lawsuit.
By
denying
the
motion,
the
judge
may
still
be
leaning
toward
Compass,
but
did
not
think
the
plaintiff
met
the
burden
of
showing
that
it
is
likely
to
prevail
at
trial.
Zillow
did
not
immediately
return
HousingWire’s
request
for
comment.
