A federal judge has mandated that Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) must restore Zillow’s access to its licensed listing data. This decision comes as part of an ongoing antitrust lawsuit filed by Zillow against MRED and Compass, aiming to prevent what Zillow alleges is a coordinated effort to reduce market transparency and competition.
Key Takeaways
- A federal judge granted Zillow’s request for a preliminary injunction, ordering MRED to reinstate listing feeds.
- MRED had previously revoked Zillow’s access, citing Zillow’s failure to display nearly all of its listings by a set deadline.
- Zillow claims the lawsuit addresses a "coordinated scheme" by MRED and Compass to "reduce transparency in the housing market."
The Legal Dispute Unfolds
Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) reinstated Zillow’s access to its licensed listing data on May 22, following a federal judge’s order. This ruling came just two days after MRED had revoked Zillow’s access, alleging that Zillow failed to display 99.8% of MRED’s listings by the May 19 deadline. MRED stated that Zillow’s non-compliance stemmed from a disagreement over the marketing strategy for a small fraction of the listings.
Zillow, in response, hailed the ruling as a crucial step for consumers and agents affected by what it describes as a "coordinated scheme between MRED and Compass to reduce transparency in the housing market." Zillow asserts that powerful industry players colluded to hide listings, stifle competition, and steer consumers toward a dominant brokerage.
The core of the legal battle began when Zillow filed an antitrust lawsuit against MRED and Compass in federal court in Chicago. Zillow alleges that these two entities collaborated to "threaten Zillow’s Chicagoland listing data feed." The lawsuit, filed on May 12, is rooted in an April agreement where Compass committed to sharing its nationwide listings through MRED’s private listing network as part of an expanded MLS partnership.
Zillow’s Allegations Against MRED and Compass
Zillow contends that this arrangement allows Compass agents nationwide to input listings into MRED, extending their influence beyond Chicago and pressuring competitors to abandon consumer protections. The complaint further alleges that MRED demanded Zillow reinstate Compass’s out-of-territory listings in early May, threatening to terminate Zillow’s access if it did not comply.
Zillow clarified that the listings it declined to display were for properties located in California, Florida, and Georgia, which it deemed irrelevant to Chicago buyers and agents. Zillow argues that displaying these listings while Compass kept them off the open market would obscure a private listing scheme. According to Zillow, MRED sought a pretext to cut off Zillow’s data feed to benefit Compass, allegedly by altering rules and leveraging listings from distant markets.
MRED, however, maintains that the dispute centers on Zillow’s attempt to impose its own display rules on listings that are lawfully marketed under MRED policies and at the discretion of sellers and their brokers. MRED asserts that this is the first time it has claimed authority over listings outside its traditional service area and that it changed its rules to facilitate this action at the behest of Compass CEO Robert Reffkin.
Industry Reactions and Future Implications
Rebecca Jensen, president and CEO of MRED, emphasized the importance of rules enforcement for the cooperative marketplace and stated that MRED has a duty to educate, counsel, and require compliance from its participants. MRED confirmed that its licensees can still access MRED services for listing contributions and transactions, and Zillow-owned services like ShowingTime and Dotloop remain unaffected.
Zillow claims Compass holds significant influence on MRED’s board and in the Chicago market, suggesting this leverage was used to reshape rules to Compass’s advantage. The lawsuit cites alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Compass, through its spokesperson, stated the issue is about homeowner choice in marketing properties and commended MRED for enforcing policies that protect consumer choice and fiduciary obligations.