Editor’s note: The COURT REPORT is RISMedia’s weekly look at current and upcoming lawsuits, investigations and other legal developments around real estate.
Chicago law firm gears up for Compass/MRED lawsuit
A prolific class-action law firm, Hagens Berman, appears to be building a case against Compass and Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) as they seek plaintiffs in Chicago who bought their homes on or after April 24, 2026.
On its website, Hagens Berman is asking for Chicago homebuyers to come forward and contact their attorneys as they may have overpaid for their homes.
“Attorneys believe that Compass and MRED together hold a 98% share of the real estate listing market in Chicago, and that they use that control in ways that inflate what buyers pay,” the post states.
The April 24 date coincides with MRED launching a national platform, with Compass joining to share some of its pre-market listings. A source close to MRED recently told RISMedia that the MLS is continuing to push forward with a (potentially) global platform.
According to Hagens Berman, buyers are not given information that would help them to “set a fair selling point,” including how long a property has been on the market. Hagens Berman is a well-known name in real estate, as they’ve brought lawsuits against Zillow, Rocket Companies and the National Association of Realtors® (NAR).
Antitrust attorneys at Hagens Berman are arguing that Compass and MRED have, “used their control over Chicagoland’s listing market to withhold that information and restrict which homes buyers can even compete for, in violation of antitrust laws that exist to keep markets open and prices competitive.”
A Compass spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. MRED could not immediately be reached for comment.
Judge denies HUD, orders complicit fair housing implementation
On Monday Sept. 14, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in the federal district of Massachusetts filed his memorandum of decision, where he denied the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) motion for reconsideration, and granted the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center and National Fair Housing Alliances’ (NFHA) motion to enforce a court order.
In the order, the NFHA asked the court to require HUD to issue replacement Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFO).
In July of this year, HUD announced that it would not allocate any of the fiscal year 2025 funding to private enforcement initiatives, nor to any ongoing multi-year grants through the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP). The Massachusetts Fair Housing Center and the NFHA filed a lawsuit against HUD in response to their restructuring.
In late August, Joun ruled that HUD failed to justify a significant restructuring of the FHIP and reinstated the 2024 funding plan, writing that the funding was set to expire at the end of September.
In regard to HUD’s motion for reconsideration, Joun outlined the requirements the defendants would have to meet for it to be appropriate. In this specific case, this includes “an intervening change in controlling law” or “clear error of law,” as outlined by Joun in the memorandum.
Based on the requirements for reconsideration, Joun denied HUD’s motion and stated that, “the challenged funding decisions were causing ongoing and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs and their members. According to the record before me, fair-housing organizations are presently experiencing funding gaps affecting staffing and enforcement activities.”
At the end of his memorandum, Joun orders HUD to:
- Immediately implement the August 26 order
- Issue the required NOFOs as soon as possible
- Proceed on an expedited basis toward obligation of the FY2025 FHIP funds
- Immediately resume and expeditiously finalize the pending third-year PEI grant agreements
- Preserve the availability of effective relief to the fullest extent, and shall not take any discretionary action to frustrate the Court’s ability to afford such relief
- File status reports on their progress every seven days
Consumer groups send letter to state attorneys general
As several ongoing lawsuits continue, a coalition of leading consumer groups sent a letter to the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), urging them to investigate the two real estate giants, Zillow and Compass.
Signed by 19 consumer-focused advocacy groups, the letter argues that, “dominant platforms have captured the commission structure through referral fee requirements that leave agents with no room to discount. The consumers pay full price for an agent who cannot compete on price—the precise outcome the litigations set out to end.”
The letter asks the NAAG to investigate the two companies over several issues, including:
- Zillow’s compliance with the August FTC settlement moving forward and launch consumer protection investigations
- Patterns and practices of “mortgage kickbacks” between large online platforms and mortgage companies
- Compass’s “pocket listing” strategy
“This is not a functioning market,” the letter continued. “It is a series of toll booths, each operated by an entity that has captured a choke point in the transaction flow. And at every point in the process, families must either pony up another fee, or find themselves monetized in a way they did not anticipate and to which they would never consent without the coercion inherent in needing a place to live.”
Zillow denied in high-stakes MRED case
On Tuesday Sept. 15, Judge John Tharp in the Northern District of Illinois denied Zillow’s motion for a preliminary injunction in a 54-page decision.
In his decision, Tharp concluded that Zillow did not make a strong showing to establish antitrust injury. Initially, Zillow filed the lawsuit against MRED and Compass, claiming that the two groups conspired and cut off Zillow from MRED’s listing feeds. In opposition, MRED claimed that Zillow violated its rules when Zillow implemented new rules banning certain “private” listings back in April 2025.
Despite the court’s denial, a Zillow spokesperson stated that “Today’s ruling is not the final word. And it hasn’t changed our belief that MRED and Compass coordinated to undermine consumers, or our commitment to proving their misconduct.”
The temporary order which prevented MRED from shutting its feed to Zillow, and Zillow from banning MRED listings is now null. Ultimately, Tharp found Zillow’s arguments of cooperation between Compass and MRED unconvincing, and added that both the MLS and the brokerage had plausible independent reasons and motivations for opposing Zillow’s rules.
Tharp’s decision also brings Zillow’s claims against MRED and Compass into private arbitration, moving the legal battle behind closed doors.
