Update December 9, 2026:

There are no results for U.S. District Court Judge Jeannette Vargas is currently deciding on Compass’s request for a preliminary injunction against Zillow’s listing policy. A ruling is expected in the coming weeks following closing arguments that concluded in late November 2025.

Case Background the Policy:

Zillow’s “Listing Access Standards” policy, effective June 30, 2025, bans listings from its website that have been publicly marketed for more than one business day without also being posted to a local Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and made available to Zillow. The Lawsuit: Compass sued Zillow in mid-June 2025, claiming the policy is anti-competitive and causes “irreparable harm” to its business and to consumers, especially seniors. Compass has a “private listings” network that allows sellers to market homes quietly with Compass agents before public MLS exposure. The Hearing: A four-day evidentiary hearing was held in November 2025 in Manhattan federal court, where both company CEOs and expert witnesses

A judge is currently considering whether to block Zillow from enforcing its controversial listing policy after a recent four-day evidentiary hearing related to an antitrust lawsuit filed by the real estate brokerage Compass. The judge’s decision on a preliminary injunction, which would pause the policy during the main lawsuit, is pending.

The Core Dispute

The case centers on Zillow’s “Listing Access Standards,” enacted in July 2025, which ban listings from its site if they are publicly marketed (e.g., on brokerage websites, social media) for more than one business day before being entered into a local Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and syndicated to Zillow.

Compass’s Argument: Compass argues that Zillow is abusing its dominant market power to stifle competition and limit consumer choice. The brokerage contends that sellers should have the flexibility to “pre-market” their homes privately (via “office exclusives” or “coming soon” listings) to test prices or gather feedback without being penalized by Zillow’s broad reach. They claim the policy primarily benefits Zillow’s lead-generation business model, not sellers or buyers.
Zillow’s Position: Zillow maintains that the policy promotes market transparency and fairness, ensuring all potential buyers have equal access to listings. Zillow argues that hiding listings creates a fragmented market, which is detrimental to the overall industry and consumers.

The Recent Hearing

The four-day federal court hearing in Manhattan featured testimony from top executives, including Zillow CEO Jeremy Wacksman and Compass CEO Robert Reffkin.

Preliminary Injunction at Stake: The hearing was held to determine if Zillow’s ban has caused Compass “irreparable harm”. If the judge, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, rules in favor of Compass’s request for a preliminary injunction, Zillow would be barred from enforcing the policy while the full antitrust lawsuit proceeds.
Key Metrics: Court documents revealed that, as of mid-November, Zillow had issued over 1,200 listing violation notices to 24 brokerages, with approximately 95% of those going to Compass agents. Zillow had also banned 48 listings nationally, 90% of which were from Compass.
Outcome Pending: Judge Vargas did not issue a ruling immediately, and the real estate industry is now waiting for her decision, which will determine the immediate future of “private” or “pocket” listings.

The main antitrust lawsuit will continue regardless of the injunction’s outcome, but the ruling will have significant implications for how real estate is marketed in the interim

Zillow vs Compass in Federal Court

The “portal wars” litigation between Zillow and Compass centers on Zillow’s policy of banning real estate listings that are publicly marketed off the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) for more than 24 hours, which Compass argues is an anticompetitive, monopolistic tactic.

Key Details of the Lawsuit

Compass’s Claims: Compass, the largest U.S. residential brokerage by sales volume, argues in its June 2025 federal lawsuit that the “Zillow Ban” is designed to protect Zillow’s market dominance and eliminate competitive threats posed by brokerages using “private exclusive” or “pocket” listings. Compass utilizes a “three-phased marketing” strategy that starts with internal-only listings before going public, a process it argues gives sellers more choice in how they market their homes and test pricing.
Zillow’s Position: Zillow defends its policy as a measure to promote transparency and ensure all listings are widely available to all buyers and agents through the MLS. Zillow argues that “hiding listings” in “dark pools of inventory” creates a fragmented market, limits consumer choice, and harms the industry as a whole.
Court Proceedings: A four-day evidentiary hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would temporarily block Zillow’s policy while the case is ongoing, concluded in a Manhattan federal court in November 2025. Zillow CEO Jeremy Wacksman and Compass CEO Robert Reffkin both testified, presenting their contrasting views on market dynamics. The judge has not yet ruled on the injunction request

Zillow vs Compass in Federal Court

Compass and Zillow are in a Manhattan federal court battle over Zillow’s policy that effectively bans listings from its site if they were publicly marketed elsewhere (like a brokerage’s website) for more than one business day without being simultaneously listed on a multiple listing service (MLS). Compass CEO Robert Reffkin testified on day one, seeking a preliminary injunction to pause the policy while the lawsuit proceeds.

Reffkin’s Testimony Highlights

Agent Intimidation: Reffkin claimed that Compass agents, including his mother, are “terrified” and “bullied” by Zillow’s policy, fearing their listings will be banned from the widely trafficked Zillow site if they use Compass’s “private exclusive” marketing strategy.
Choice vs. Control: He argued that sellers should have the “choice” in how their homes are marketed and that this should not be dictated by platforms, framing Compass’s private listing strategy as offering options to consumers.
Competitive Threat: Reffkin asserted the policy is a “ban to protect Zillow” by ensuring “nobody knows that listings exist that aren’t on Zillow,” positioning the policy as an anticompetitive move to block Compass as a search rival.

Zillow’s Argument and Day 1 Proceedings

Zillow attorneys argued the policy is pro-competitive and ensures transparency for consumers, preventing brokerages from “hoarding” listings in “dark pools of inventory” through a “velvet rope” approach. On cross-examination, Zillow’s attorney tried to counter the claims of harm by showing internal Compass emails where Reffkin himself downplayed Zillow’s importance, allegedly stating that being on Zillow is “not necessarily in their best interest”.

Current Status

The day-one hearing was part of a four-day evidentiary hearing. U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas will decide whether to grant Compass’s request for a preliminary injunction to block Zillow’s policy while the antitrust case plays out. A ruling date has not been set. The outcome could have significant implications for the real estate industry and how exclusive listings are handled.