Zillow and Compass dominated the news in 2025, with their disagreement over the National Association of Realtors’ Clear Cooperation Policy eventually segueing into a headline-making antitrust lawsuit with far-reaching implications for both companies’ strategies.
Here’s a brief timeline of how the rivalry started, how it evolved last year and what’s next for this year (Hint: We don’t know).
Fall 2024: The rivalry begins taking shape
The seeds of Compass and Zillow’s legal battle were planted in October 2024, when the National Association of Realtors shared that its Emerging Issues Advisory Board would begin discussing the future of Clear Cooperation. The policy, which requires brokers to submit a listing to their multiple listing services within one business day of marketing a property to the public, was polarizing from the beginning but faded into the background during the Sitzer | Burnett buyer-broker commission lawsuit.
However, NAR’s announcement brought CCP back to the fore and sparked fierce debate among the industry’s major players. Zillow and Compass, well-respected and well-resourced giants in their respective realms, became key representatives of opposing sides in the debate.
On the one hand, Zillow argued that CCP should be protected and strengthened by removing the office exclusivity exemption.
“We didn’t expect this to be such a big issue,” Zillow CEO Jeremy Wacksman told Mike DelPrete in October 2024. “To us, it’s so obvious that private listing networks are bad. They’re bad for buyers. They’re bad for sellers, and they’re ultimately bad for agents, right?”
Meanwhile, Compass CEO Robert Reffkin argued that CCP limits homeowner choice, introduces ethics violations and penalizes homes with “negative insights” such as days on market or price drops. Compass also launched a three-phase marketing plan in which listings begin their journey in the market as private exclusives.
“I think in the future of real estate at some point in this country, people will come to Compass to find listings, they’ll go to the MLS to find listings, they’ll go to one or two aggregators to find listings,” Reffkin said in a November 2024 earnings call. “But it’s not going to be unlike almost any other product you want to buy.”
March: NAR makes a decision
The debate over Clear Cooperation spilled into 2025. In March, NAR finally took the middle road, keeping CCP but adding the Delayed Marketing Exempt Listings option, which allows homesellers and their brokers to delay the public marketing of their listing.
Zillow and Compass leaders released statements after the announcement, both saying that NAR’s decision “reinforced” and “acknowledged” their respective viewpoints.
“NAR’s decision to uphold its Clear Cooperation Policy, including requiring a seller disclosure form for office exclusives and pre-marketing, reinforces what we have long known: withholding listings off the MLS and behind a velvet rope limits competition, reduces transparency and disadvantages buyers, sellers and agents,” Zillow Chief Industry Development Officer Errol Samuelson said at the time.
“Expanding choice means that NAR is still not letting homeowners choose precisely how to market their homes, but this is a small step in the right direction,” Reffkin said. “MLSs shouldn’t restrict how homeowners market their homes at all, but by providing them with a longer period of unrestricted public marketing, like 30 days, MLSs reduce their legal risk, and homeowners gain more choice that they need and deserve.”
April: Zillow announces its ban
Two weeks after NAR announced its updated Clear Cooperation Policy, Zillow revealed its Listing Access Standard rule.
The rule — often characterized as a “ban” — meant Zillow would not display listings that are publicly marketed but not added to the local MLS or made available to the portal within 24 hours of that marketing. Zillow said “coming soon” listings, office exclusives and Delayed Marketing Exempt Listings are allowed under its rule, as long as listing brokers adhere to NAR’s guidance for each listing status.
The portal said it would send agents two non-compliance notices before banning a listing. After that point, the only way the listing would be displayed on Zillow is if it were delisted and relisted under a different broker who complied with the standard.
“The idea is buyers and sellers benefit when they have unfettered access to all the information about the market,” Samuelson told Inman in April. “You’re going to need to make a choice in how you want to market a listing.”
After Zillow announced the rule, industry players quickly took sides. EXp Realty and NextHome, among others, backed Zillow and said they would follow the portal’s standards. Meanwhile, others cried foul, among them CoStar Group CEO Andy Florance, who echoed Reffkin in saying that Zillow overstepped boundaries with the rule.
June: Compass throws down the gauntlet
Tension between Zillow and Compass culminated in the spring when the brokerage filed an antitrust complaint against the portal on June 23. Compass claimed Zillow had employed “anticompetitive tactics to protect its monopoly and revenues in violation of the antitrust laws,” while pointing to Zillow’s listing ban as the prime example of Zillow’s alleged antitrust activity.
The complaint framed Zillow’s Listing Access Standard as an attempt to bolster the portal’s bottom line by removing seller choice and stifling competitive marketing models.
“For Zillow, every home buyer search conducted on Compass instead of Zillow is a lost opportunity for Zillow to lock that prospective home buyer into Zillow’s ecosystem and make money selling her information to real estate agents for a lead fee — Zillow’s central business model,” the complaint read.
Zillow leadership disputed Compass’s claims, saying the listing policy was in place to protect marketplace transparency for agents and consumers.
“Hiding listings creates a fragmented market, limits consumer choice and creates barriers to homeownership, which is bad for buyers, sellers and the industry at large, especially in this inventory and affordability-constrained environment,” the company said in June.
On June 27, Compass filed a request for a preliminary injunction, which would prevent Zillow from enforcing its rules while the lawsuit worked its way through the court. The injunction argued that Zillow’s Listing Access Standard had caused irreparable harm to Compass, which was still leaning into its three-phase marketing approach. In Compass’ filing, the brokerage accused the portal of conspiring “to strangle Compass’s market innovations.”
A few days later, Zillow filed a response, defending its Listing Access Standard and batting off claims that its rule “irreparably harmed” Compass. Zillow accused Compass of erecting “new barriers for buyers” and pushing a “more frustrating and less efficient” consumer experience.
November: Taking the stand
Filings in the case trickled in over the ensuing months, but the situation heated up in November during a four-day evidentiary hearing for the preliminary injunction.
The hearing explored months of internal communications about Clear Cooperation, the Listing Access Standard, private networks and corporate strategies. Compass co-founder and CEO Robert Reffkin, Zillow Group Chief Industry Development Officer Errol Samuelson, Zillow CEO Jeremy Wacksman, Zillow CFO Jeremy Hofmann, and Compass SVP of Strategy and Business Operations Ashton Alexander took the stand.
Among other things, the hearing highlighted Zillow’s plan to entice industry players to follow its standard, a partnership offer to Compass, and communications discussing whether the three-phase marketing strategy broke Zillow’s rules.
The hearing also took a deep dive into antitrust law, monopolistic power, and the thin line between exercising the right of refusal and anticompetitive conduct.
READ THE FULL HEARING BREAKDOWN HERE
After the hearing, the companies filed two post-hearing briefs that succinctly outlined their arguments.
Zillow refuted any claims of irreparable harm, saying Compass logged record-breaking second- and third-quarter financial results that show the policy had no material impact on the brokerage’s bottom line — and argued that if it had, Compass would have disclosed as much in its filings for quarterly earnings, and in documents for its proposed acquisition of Anywhere.
Meanwhile, Compass said Zillow’s ban reduced three-phase marketing usage from 39 percent to 22 percent between April and July, harming brand visibility and equity by reducing traffic to Compass’ site and leading the brokerage to scrap a nationwide billboard campaign focused on private exclusives. The brokerage said the policy also harms homesellers by restricting marketing choice and discouraging other brokerages from creating innovative marketing solutions.
2026: Who knows?
The judge has yet to rule on the preliminary injunction. However, a decision is expected early this year.
