Zillow Says There Is No Evidence Of ‘irreparable Harm’ To Compass

The hearing regarding Compass’s attempt to prevent Zillow from enforcing its listing access standards is fast approaching, but Zillow is questioning if a hearing is even necessary. Zillow expressed these thoughts in a letter addressed to Judge Jeanette Vargas, a New York City-based U.S. District Court judge, filed on Monday. 

The letter is Zillow’s latest in the antitrust lawsuit filed by Compass in mid-June, in which the Robert Reffkin-helmed firm claims that Zillow’s listing access standards break Federal antitrust laws. Announced in early April, Zillow’s listing access standards policy bans listings from its site if they have been publicly advertised for more than one business day before being input into the MLS and made available for display on IDX and VOW websites.

Zillow says irreparable harm to Compass has not been proven

In late June, Compass filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, in which it claims that if Zillow continues to enforce its policy, it will suffer irreparable harm. The two parties recently concluded an expedited discovery regarding this motion. 

According to Zillow’s most recent letter, based on the evidence and testimony gathered during discovery, it does not feel a hearing on the motion will be necessary for Judge Vargas to rule. 

“The record is clear that Compass cannot sustain its burden on the [preliminary injunction] motion for several reasons,” the letter states. “First, Compass presents no actual, non-speculative evidence of irreparable harm.”

Zillow also states that while Compass has claimed that Zillow’s listing access standards policy prevents it from implementing its three-phased marketing strategy (3PM) if a seller also wants their home on Zillow, testimony shows otherwise.

“Nearly every Compass witness admitted that Compass continues to implement 3PM in some form,” the letter states. “Likewise, when asked about impact of the Standards to 3PM during Compass’s July 30 investor call, Compass’s CEO Robert Reffkin said ‘Compass private exclusives have stayed at basically the same level throughout the last number of months.’”

The letter also cites testimony from Soham Bohnsle, Compass’s head of investor relations, in which he states that since Zillow began enforcing the policy at the end of June, “Compass’s stock price increased by approximately 40%, a sign of positive investor sentiment.” This is contrary to Compass’s claim that investors were “confused and concerned” about the policy. 

Zillow also highlights testimony from Compass’s president of brokerage operations Nada Navab, in which Navab testifies that Zillow’s policy is “not a meaningful driver of agent retention risk,” also contrary to previous claims made by the brokerage. 

“On this record, Compass falls woefully short of showing irreparable harm to itself due to Zillow’s Standards,” the letter states. 

Compass has failed to establish antitrust claims, says Zillow

Additionally, Zillow claims that Compass has failed to establish its antitrust claims and is asking the court to potentially remove them, as it would narrow the scope of a potential preliminary injunction hearing.

Zillow claims that Compass cannot establish that “Zillow has a duty to deal with Compass on its preferred terms.” The letter cites testimony of Compass’s expert witness Dr. Debra Aron, which Zillow claims “not only fails to address this issue, but opines inconsistently with Compass’s burden.”

“In fact, Dr. Aron’s opinions completely undermine Compass’s claims, as she admits that losing listings would degrade the quality of Zillow’s platform,” the letter states. “Dr. Aron complains that ‘Zillow is not seeking to make its platform more attractive for Compass and other companies,’ and that Zillow should be forced to degrade the quality of its platform while Compass may ‘den[y] access’ to its listings.”

Additionally, Zillow claims that Compass has failed to show that the policy is “anticompetitive exclusionary conduct,” and that Zillow could have achieved the same results through less restrictive means. 

With supplemental brief deadlines and the date of the preliminary injunction hearing fast approaching, Zillow is asking Judge Vargas if the parties can file short briefs prior to their supplemental brief deadlines so the court can determine if a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion is needed. Alternatively, Zillow asks if they can delay the hearing, which is currently scheduled for November 17, 2025, just three days after Zillow’s deadline to file its supplemental brief.