The real estate industry is again in the antitrust spotlight, with recent lawsuits targeting the market dominance and listing policies of major players like Zillow, Inc. (Zillow) and the National Association of Realtors (NAR). On June 23, 2025, Compass, Inc. (Compass), a leading national real estate brokerage known for its technology-driven platform, filed suit against Zillow, an online real estate marketplace. At the same time, PLS.com (PLS), an alternative listing platform created for licensed real estate professionals to share private listings, has refiled its federal antitrust lawsuit against the NAR. NAR is the largest trade association in real estate, overseeing a network of multiple listing services (MLSs) that dominate how homes are listed and marketed nationwide.
Both lawsuits assert that dominant players in the real estate industry are leveraging their market power and restrictive policies to limit competition and suppress innovation. These actions, the plaintiffs argue, not only harm rival businesses but also restrict consumer choice in how homes are marketed and sold. The outcomes of these cases could fundamentally change listing practices and the availability of alternative marketing platforms.
Compass v. Zillow
In June, Compass filed its complaint against Zillow, and its subsidiaries, alleging Zillow engaged in anticompetitive tactics by enacting its “Zillow Ban” on “office listings,” which are listings marketed exclusively on brokerage websites. Compass not only alleged that the Zillow Ban harms real estate brokerage firms across the nation, but also that Zillow and its competitors conspired to undermine Compass’s “competitive threat” in the residential real estate search engine market. This ban, Compass claimed, threatens its “3-Phased Marketing Strategy” by effectively punishing Compass’ sellers and agents who delay MLS publication, undermining the value of Compass’s approach.
Zillow enacted the Zillow Ban policy in June. The ban requires that if a home seller and their agent publicly market a property off Zillow for more than a day, Zillow and its “allies” will remove the listing from their search platforms, hiding it from potential buyers. When homes are listed on regional MLS systems, the listings typically are automatically added to the Zillow platform. With the Zillow Ban, Zillow will allow a listing back on its platform only if the homeowners fire their original agent and brokerage and hire a new agent and brokerage to manage the listing. According to Compass, “public marketing” under the Zillow Ban is a broad term as it applies to “virtually any effort” to market a listing to the public.
Compass developed its 3-Phased Marketing Strategy to provide a strategic plan for home sellers listing their residential properties for sale, serving as an alternative to Zillow’s home listing platform. This phased strategy allows home sellers and their agents to first post the listing internally to advertise to other Compass agents, then publicly to Compass’s public home search platform as “Coming Soon” before the listing is shared with MLS databases, and thus also posting to platforms like Zillow. The most relevant aspect of Compass’s phased strategy is that the listings are not posted to Zillow’s platform until the third and final phase, meaning that any listing marketed through Compass’s 3-Phased Marketing Strategy is publicly marketed for longer than one business day before it reaches the Zillow platform.
Compass alleged in its complaint that Zillow’s ban violates antitrust laws in two ways: First, Zillow exploits its monopoly power to unilaterally impose the ban, thereby engaging in monopolistic conduct in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Second, Zillow has entered into anticompetitive agreements with its competitors in the home-search market, effectively colluding to impose the ban, which constitutes a conspiracy prohibited under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Zillow Ban is unlawful on both fronts, according to Compass: It was designed to undermine a competitive threat and ultimately reduce consumer choice for homeowners. As a result, Compass claims, the Zillow Ban suppresses “rivals” from competing with Zillow’s dominant platform.
In its response, Zillow argued that Compass cannot prevail, and the court should dismiss the claims. Zillow responded that Compass lacks antitrust standing because the complaint failed to demonstrate an antitrust injury and irreparable harm. Zillow also argued that Compass’ claims amount to a duty to deal claim which is disfavored in antitrust. In short, Zillow argued it is free to choose the parties with whom it conducts business, it unilaterally established the so-called Zillow Ban, and it has no obligation to conduct business with Compass.
The PLS.com v. National Association of Realtors
The PLS.com refiled its federal antitrust lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors, claiming NAR and affiliated MLS systems conspired to suppress competition from PLS by implementing NAR’s Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP). In its renewed lawsuit, PLS dropped the 2020 lawsuit’s codefendants—California Regional MLS, Bright MLS, and Midwest Estate Data—and instead, listed them as co-conspirators.
PLS, or the “Pocket Listing System,” was created as an alternative to the traditional MLS systems for licensed real estate professionals. Professionals posted a listing to PLS to share a listing privately with other such professionals without separately posting the listing to a public MLS. Unlike the mandatory, one-size-fits-all approach of many traditional MLSs, PLS sought to grant agents and home sellers more discretion over how listings were shared, especially in the early stages of a sale.
NAR’s CCP requires all NAR members utilizing NAR-affiliated MLSs to post a listing to the MLS within one business day of publicly marketing the listing. This posed a challenge to companies like PLS, whose system was designed as an alternative to MLSs. Like the Zillow Ban, the term “publicly market” under the CCP is defined broadly and includes marketing strategies such as “flyers displayed in windows, yard signs, [and] digital marketing on public facing websites.” The only exception to the policy is brokerage “office listings.” The rule effectively eliminates the use of private networks like PLS as it compels agents to submit the listing to the MLS almost immediately after initiating any kind of public promotion.
PLS alleged NAR violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by controlling competition in the real estate industry through its CCP. The CCP, according to PLS, chills competition in the real estate industry and targets competitors like PLS to prevent any threats to the established NAR-affiliated MLS system. Further, the CCP was allegedly developed for NAR and its co-conspirators’ financial benefit, and to exclude networks like PLS from operating within the real estate industry.
As of publication, NAR has not filed a response to PLS’s complaint.
Takeaways
These two litigations are illustrative samples of the antitrust litigations and investigations in the real estate market. As the real estate industry’s traditional models continue to shift, companies should consider the antitrust implications in rule setting, exclusivity provisions, and access. Companies with significant share in their market should evaluate the rationale for their policies and document procompetitive reasoning for any rules that restrict competition.
Small companies seeking to disrupt the status quo should also consider whether barriers to entry into the real estate market are the result of anticompetitive activity and seek antitrust counsel for strategies to address those roadblocks.
[View source.]
