Search Articles
MANHATTAN (CN) — A New York federal judge on Friday declined to immediately stop Zillow from banning real estate listings advertised first on other platforms, which competitor Compass claims is part of an anticompetitive and illegal conspiracy.
In her 50-page opinion denying Compass’ motion for a preliminary injunction to temporarily halt the so-called “Zillow ban,” U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas wrote that Compass’ arguments about Zillow’s monopoly power in the online home search market were undermined by the recent entry of competitors and evidence that Zillow’s market share is declining.
“Given that consumers use multiple online home search platforms simultaneously at little or no cost, Zillow’s brand recognition and related network effect do not appear to have deterred prospective home buyers from cross-shopping amongst competitors or new entrants,” Vargas, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote.
“Consequently, even assuming that Zillow possesses a 50%-66% share of the relevant market, Compass has not provided sufficient evidence from which it can be inferred that Zillow has monopoly power in the online home search market,” she wrote, concluding that Compass has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits to justify the requested preliminary injunction.
Compass sued Zillow for civil antitrust violations in June 2025, accusing the most widely used real estate marketplace in the United States of gatekeeping and anticompetitive tactics.
To protect its throne, Compass says, Zillow conspired with at least two competitors, Redfin and eXp Realty, to instate what it calls the “Zillow ban.”
“Simply stated, the Zillow ban mandates that if a home seller and her agent market a home off Zillow for more than one day, then Zillow and its allies will ban that listing from their search platforms, making the home invisible for many buyers,” Compass wrote in its lawsuit.
Compass accuses Zillow of using the ban to steer home listings toward its own platform, dampening competition and limiting homeowners’ choice in violation of the Sherman Act. The company sought a preliminary injunction to temporarily bar Zillow from enforcing the challenged listing standards while the case makes its way through court.
Vargas, in her opinion, found that Compass, “however, has not adduced sufficient evidence to show that Zillow entered into any such agreement with Redfin.”
“Further, the circumstantial evidence upon which Compass relies is not only ambiguous at best, but is also contradicted by credible witness testimony and the contemporaneous written record,” the judge wrote.
Compass argued in its motion that the company risks irreparable harm to its competitive advantage and reputation from the so-called “Zillow ban,” along with harm to consumers who would benefit from competition and choice in the home search market, but Vargas concluded she did need not reach the question of irreparable harm since she found Compass did not prove its case was likely to succeed.
Zillow, based in Seattle, contends it’s not required by antitrust law to display Compass listings, regardless of whether or not it has market power. Zillow also asserts it has no duty to deal with or assist a competitor like Compass on its preferred terms.
Three months after Compass filed its antitrust complaint, the Federal Trade Commission sued Zillow and its competitor Redfin over a $100 million payment to cease advertising multifamily rental properties, an apparent effort to stop competition.
In the lawsuit, filed in September 2025 in Virginia federal court, the FTC claims the anticompetitive deal violates the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
Earlier this week, the FTC filed briefs responding to Zillow’s motion to dismiss the federal antitrust case.
Follow @jruss_jrussSubscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.