In
the
motion,
NWMLS
claims
that
Compass
“fails
to
allege
a
cognizable
relevant
market,”
that
its
“own
allegations
undermine
any
claim
of
anticompetitive
effects
and
confirm
the
pro-competitive
nature
of
NWMLS’
rules,”
and
that
the
complaint
alleges
no
harm
to
competition
or
exclusionary
conduct,
which
is
required
for
a
monopolization
claim. 

Filed
in
U.S.
District
Court
in

Seattle,
the
lawsuit
alleges
that
NWMLS
is
a
monopoly,
and
that
its
listing
policy
is
harming
competition
and
negatively
impacting
Compass
by
not
allow
for
office
exclusive
or
private
exclusive
listings.
Compass
also
alleges
this
harms
home
buyers
and
sellers,
as
the
policy
prevents
Compass
from
utilizing
its

three-phase
marketing
plan.

NWMLS
is
not
Realtor-affiliated,
so
it
does
not
have
to
follow
MLS
policies
set
forth
by
the


National
Association
of
Realtors
(NAR),
whose

Clear
Cooperation
Policy
(CCP)
for
listings
does
allow
for
office
exclusives. 

NWMLS’s
rules
state
that
in
order
to
gain
access
to
their
competitors’
listings,
NWMLS
member
brokers
must
agree
to
submit
their
own
listings. 

“By
demanding
access
to
others’
listings
while
claiming
a
right
to
deprive
other
member
brokerages
of
its
own
listings,
Compass’
Complaint
confirms
the
pro-competitive
nature
of
NWMLS’
rules
requiring
submission
of
listings,
which
Compass’
new
‘pre-marketing
program
subverts,”
the
motion
states.

“NWMLS
has
no
antitrust
or
common-law
obligation
to
promote
Compass’
exclusionary,
free-rider
strategy.
NWMLS’
rules
were
designed
to
prohibit
conduct
like
Compass’,
which
destroys
competition
in
the

real
estate
market,
harms
consumers,
and
contravenes
NWMLS’
founding
purpose.”

NWMLS
argues
that
its
rules
ensure
that
all
members
“have
fair
access
to
each
other’s

listings
and
eliminates
the
possibility
that
one
member
may
extract
value
from
others
without
a
corresponding
contribution
for
that
value.” 

Compass
has
stated
that
nearly
half
of
its
listings
outside

Washington
state
in
the
first
quarter
of
2025
began
as
private
exclusive,
but
the
overwhelming
majority
(94%)
eventually
ended
up
in
the
MLS. 

NWMLS
claims
that
Compass
is
using
its
three-phased
marketing
plan
to
steer
its
in-house
listings
to
Compass-represented
buyers,
allowing
the
company
to
double-end
the
deal.
But
if
Compass
is
unable
to
find
an
in-house
buyer,
NWMLS
claims
that
the
brokerage
then
puts
the
listing
on
the
open
market. 

“Compass,
however,
cannot
have
it
both
ways,”
NWMLS
wrote
in
its
filing. 

The
motion
also
calls
into
question
how
private
Compass’s
Private
Exclusives
actually
are. 

“The
only
thing
‘private’
about
the
Private
Exclusive
phase
is
that
Compass
disseminates
the
listing
to
its
34,000
‘nationwide’
agents
and
their
‘millions
of
buyers,’
but
not
to
non-Compass
agents,
thus
contradicting
the
Complaint’s
conclusory
assertions
about
owner
security
and
privacy,”
NWMLS
wrote
in
a
footnote
in
its
motion.

The

MLS
goes
on
to
claim
that
Compass
wants
everyone
—
including
“millions
of
buyers”
but
not
competing
NWMLS
member
firms
—
to
know
about
its
private
listings. 

If
NWMLS’s
motion
to
dismiss
is
not
granted,
Judge
Jamal
N.
Whitehead
has
set
a

start
date
for
a
trial
of
June
8,
2026.