On
Friday,
the
two
firms
filed
their
court-mandated
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law.

As
one
might
expect,
the
two
parties
had
very
different
views
on
the
facts
and
evidence
presented.

Zillow
wants
to
“maintain
listing
transparency”

In
its
filing,
Zillow
asserts
that
Compass
is
wrong
on
both
the
facts
and
the
law,
claiming
that
the
Robert
Reffkin-helmed
firm
has
failed
to
fulfill
the
requirements
needed
for
Judge
Vargas
to
grant
the
firm’s
preliminary
injunction
motion. 

Zillow
maintains
that
its
listing
policy
was
designed
to
maintain
listing
transparency
and
to
protect
consumers.
The
firm
also
maintains
that
despite
data
showing
that
more
Compass
agents
and
listings
have
been
impacted
than
those
of
any
other
brokerage,
the
policy
is
being
applied
neutrally.
The
filing
also
touched
on
Compass’s
allegations
that
Zillow
and
Redfin
conspired,
arguing
that
testimony
from
executives
at
both
firms
show
that
they
developed
their
listing
policies
independently,
and
noting
that
Redfin
ultimately
never
implemented
the
policy. 

The
defendant
also
pushed
back
on
Compass’s
claims
that
it
is
a

monopoly
power,
noting
that
the
listing
portal
space
is
full
of
growing
competitors.

“Compass
failed
to
show
that
there
are
high
barriers
to
entry
in
online
home
search
such
that
Zillow
is
unconstrained
by
competition.
Recent
entrants
to
the
market
undermine
arguments
that
there
are
significant
barriers
to
entry,”
the
filing
states.
“For
example,


CoStar
acquired

Homes.com
in
2021
and
its
platform
has
grown
rapidly
in
the
four
years
that
followed,
from
2.4%
to
19%
audience
share.”

The
filing
also
touches
on
Compass’s
claims
of
irreparable
harm.
Zillow
argues
Compass’s
claims
are
speculative
and
that
its
record-breaking

financial
results
in
the
third
quarter
of
this
year
contradict
its
harm
claims. 

“Other
than
belief,
there
is
no
evidence
that
[Zillow’s
policy]
were
the
reason
for
the
decline
in
Compass.com’s
traffic,”
the
filing
states.
“Nor
was
any
evidence
presented,
beyond
speculative
belief,
that
Zillow’s
Standards
and
any
resulting
decreased
adoption
of
[three-phased
marketing]
has
caused
Compass
to
lose
listings.
Compass’s
agent
denied
losing
listings
as
a
result
of
Zillow’s
Standards
and
Compass
acknowledged
that
a
drop
in
adoption
of
[three-phased
marketing]
does
not
mean
that
it
has
lost
any
listings.”

Compass
reads
the
situation
differently

Compass’s
filing,
while
touching
on
all
the
same
bullet
points,
has
a
different
read
on
the
situation. 

Central
to
Compass’s
argument
is
the
firm’s
belief
that
Zillow
is
diminishing
its
three-phased
marketing
strategy,
which
it
says
is
a
benefit
to
consumers,
agents
and
Compass.
By
preventing
Compass
and
consumers
in
general
from
reaping
the
benefits
they
feel
the
strategy
offers,
Compass
argues
that
Zillow
is
causing
harm
to
both
itself
and
competition
within
the
industry. 

“Instead
of
competing
on
the
merits,
Zillow
has
used
its
immense
power
to
exclude
competition
based
on
unique
inventory,”
Compass
argues.

Compass
also
contends
that
it
is
“undisputed”
that
Zillow
is
targeting
Compass
with
this
policy,
calling
reference
to
a
Zillow
strategy
document
presented
as
evidence
during
the
hearing
that
one
of
Zillow’s
goals
was
to
convince
agents
to
swap
from
their
firm
to
a
brokerage
that
is
friendly
with
Zillow.

Additionally,
Compass
argued
that
Zillow
created
its
policy
in
order
to
maintain
its
monopoly
and
that
“Zillow
is
putting
anticompetitive
restraints
on
its
customers
(home
sellers
and
agents),
not
its
competitors
(competing
online
search
platforms).”

It
is
currently
unknown
when
Judge
Vargas
will
issue
a
ruling
on
Compass’s
motion,
but
based
on
typical
lawsuit
cadences,
attorneys
have
told
HousingWire
that
a
decision
may
not
be
reached
until
the
new
year.