The first day of Zillow’s preliminary injunction hearing against Midwest Real Estate Data and Compass began July 1 as a fight over whether the portal should retain access to a Chicagoland MLS feed. But a transcript of the hearing shows the testimony quickly moved to a larger battle over premarketing, private listing networks and who gets to control the first days of a home listing.
Errol Samuelson, Zillow’s chief industry development officer, spent much of the Wednesday hearing before U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr. defending the company’s Listing Access Standards and Zillow Preview as pro-transparency tools.
Compass and MRED sought to reframe those policies as an effort to protect the flow of listings that powers Zillow’s business. Compass attorney Nathan Eimer argued Zillow was “asking this Court to put its thumb on the scale of competition,” while MRED attorney Stephen Libowsky said the case pitted neutral MLS rules against a company that “thinks it knows best how everyone should buy and sell a home.”
Tharp, who previously ordered MRED to restore Zillow’s feed through a temporary restraining order, is not expected to rule until after post-hearing briefing.
The first days of a listing are the battleground
Samuelson testified that listings are central to Zillow’s business model, telling the court that “you could say they’re the lifeblood of our business.” Without listings, he said, Zillow would not have an audience, and without an audience, it could not sell advertising to agents.
Fresh listings matter most, he testified. Walking the court through Zillow data, Samuelson said a new listing gets almost 180 views on the day it first hits the market, but falls to about 60 views per day by day five.
That drop-off helps explain why Zillow, Compass’ Private Exclusives and MRED’s private listing network are all chasing the same inventory. When asked whether Zillow Preview competes with private listing networks, Samuelson said both are trying to get listings as soon as they hit the market or even before.
“We also are trying to get those listings first. So it’s really about a race to who can get the listing first, and that’s why we compete directly with private listing networks,” Samuelson said.
It was one of the clearest explanations of the dispute, illustrating that whoever controls a listing’s earliest days can shape where buyers search, where agents spend money and which platform consumers believe has the full market.
Zillow Preview became Zillow’s answer to PLNs
Samuelson also defended Zillow Preview, the company’s premarket listing product, as a more open answer to private listing networks.
He described Preview as a way for agents and sellers to build early interest before a home fully enters the MLS and broader public market. Unlike closed private listing networks, he said, Preview listings can be seen by buyers broadly and can be accessed through buyer agents of their choosing.
He compared it to a movie trailer.
“We like to think of it almost like a trailer for a movie,” Samuelson said. “So the movie is going to open next week. You can’t buy tickets for it right now, but you can buy a ticket for next week, but it’s to try and create that momentum before the listing hits the market.”
On cross-examination, Compass attorney Alec Solotorovsky sought to reframe Preview as evidence of Zillow’s own competitive self-interest. He walked Samuelson through Zillow’s “Project Daylight” materials, dated March 4, after Compass announced its deal to display coming-soon listings on Redfin.
Samuelson acknowledged that the Compass-Redfin deal was “one of the reasons” Zillow accelerated its efforts. He also acknowledged that Zillow amended its Listing Access Standards around the same period it launched Preview, though he said both moves were responses to broader industry changes as MLSs began allowing longer premarketing windows.
Compass used the timing to undercut Zillow’s transparency argument, arguing that the company changed its standards once it had its own premarketing product to defend.
Compass argued the standards were built to protect Zillow — and aimed at Compass
One of the day’s most pointed exchanges came when Solotorovsky opened a December 2024 internal Zillow strategy document drafted months before the company adopted its Listing Access Standards. The document contemplated how Zillow might respond if the National Association of Realtors’ Clear Cooperation Policy collapsed.
The document listed “Example Hardline Tactics,” including suppressing listings from “uncooperative brokerages” in Zillow’s search rankings and removing “ALL” of an uncooperative brokerage’s listings from the platform. One stated goal was to “punish the agent for choosing to put their listings on alternate networks.” A later page asked, “What does ‘or else’ look like?” and “Who do we punish with which tactics?”
Another bullet warned that “everything about the hardline plan assumes we can be successful at using a hammer to keep sellers and agents on our site.”
Asked whether Zillow had been prepared to “hammer people to keep listings flowing to Zillow,” Samuelson called it “colorful language” but said the company ultimately adopted a different approach.
“I think the important point is what did we end up doing,” Samuelson testified. “We implemented our listing access standards which I don’t think is a hammer.”
Samuelson repeatedly characterized the document as a “thought piece” written by two corporate strategy employees and noted that it was marked outdated within two days of its creation. The standards Zillow actually adopted, he said, apply listing by listing rather than targeting brokerages or agents.
Compass also pointed to Zillow’s own interrogatory response to argue that the standards overwhelmingly affected Compass. Of 1,390 listings Zillow refused to display under the standards since March 1, 2025, Solotorovsky said, all but eight were Compass listings.
Samuelson said he assumed the count was accurate but rejected the inference.
“I’m not surprised that the largest brokerage, which has made a strategy of using private listing networks, has the most violations,” he said, adding that Compass has “institutionalized” a three-phase marketing program that encourages agents to put listings into a private network.
The fight turned on what ‘private’ really means
Solotorovsky also pushed Samuelson on where Zillow draws the line between true office exclusives and private listings marketed to consumers online.
The exchange centered on the “black box” on Compass’ website advertising that Private Exclusives exist. Solotorovsky asked whether removing that prompt — making the listings harder for consumers to discover — would bring those same listings into compliance with Zillow’s standards.
Samuelson said it would, because the listings would then be true office exclusives rather than consumer-facing private inventory.
Solotorovsky used the exchange to argue that Zillow’s standards turn on how Compass markets the listings, not whether the listings exist outside the MLS. But if Compass made them more transparent by telling buyers they exist, Zillow would suppress them.
Samuelson said Zillow was drawing a different line.
“Private listings are fine, right, because there are some sellers who prioritize privacy,” Samuelson testified. “That’s great. What we take issue with is when it’s not a truly private listing. Anybody on the open internet can come see this listing. All they have to do is fill out the box.”
Solotorovsky later suggested that true office exclusives are the least transparent kind of listing, because a buyer might only learn about one through a personal connection to the seller or broker. Samuelson agreed that office exclusives resemble “real estate before the internet,” but said some sellers still choose that path after acknowledging the risks.
The exchange highlighted the parties’ core divide — Compass says Zillow is punishing the brokerage for telling consumers about inventory that exists either way. Zillow says a “private” listing anyone can unlock through a registration form is not really private at all. It is consumer-facing private inventory that competes with open listing access while steering buyers toward Compass agents.
Broude’s testimony teed up the coordination theory
Later in the day, Zillow called Fran Broude, Compass’ regional vice president for its Midstates North territory and an MRED board member, and used her testimony to build out its coordination theory.
Broude initially testified that she did not tell Compass agents they could not submit listings directly to Zillow. Zillow attorney Bonnie Lau then showed her a May 12 email to Compass Chicagoland agents stating that “Compass will not provide Zillow with a direct listing feed” and that “Compass agents cannot directly submit for-sale listings to Zillow.”
Broude acknowledged the language. She also confirmed that Compass kept its direct feed to Redfin.
Lau also questioned Broude about an internal Compass document titled “Notes from MRED calls,” which Broude said reflected another employee’s notes from calls that day. Lau read portions stating that “MRED is protecting all agents and listings from Zillow bans,” that “if Zillow bans anything, they could lose their feed in Chicagoland,” and that “MRED will protect you from Zillow.”
Broude confirmed Lau had read the language correctly, but said the document reflected another employee’s takeaways.
“These are Mr. Heming’s notes,” Broude testified. “I didn’t write them. I think these are Mr. Heming’s takeaways from the number of calls that took place on that day, both from Compass leadership, his conversations with his colleague sales managers, and this is what he was summarizing.”
Lau then walked Broude through a series of Compass meeting invitations, including an April 30 meeting on “MRED data pulled preparedness,” a May 5 meeting titled “Chicago MRED feed plan,” and a May 8 meeting titled “MRED feed cut.” The latter two came 13 and 10 days before MRED publicly threatened, on May 18, to cut Zillow’s feed.
Lau also pointed to a May 6 email from a Compass communications staffer that said the company was creating a “Chicagoland-specific ad campaign to promote our vast number of listings not found on Zillow.” By May 8, Compass had drafted marketing images reading, “Compass has homes not on Zillow.”
Broude said Compass was preparing communications in case of a feed suspension the company “greatly hoped” would not happen. Whether that paper trail shows ordinary contingency planning or evidence of coordination is likely to remain central as the parties brief the injunction request.
