Compass targets Zillow with consumer ethics complaints in dozens of states
Compass filed state-level ethics complaints on July 14 through 30 Realtor® associations, at least 50 MLSs and multiple real estate regulators across 26 states, targeting Zillow and focusing on allegedly misleading property designations on listings.
A source with direct knowledge of the effort told RISMedia that the complaints were legal in nature. A Compass spokesperson characterized the actions as “ethical complaints filed at the MLS, state and Realtor® association level,” but confirmed the number of states as 26, and MLSs as approximately 50. The complaints are ethics, MLS and regulatory based: ethics complaints are being filed with Realtor® associations, MLS complaints with MLSs and regulator complaints are with state regulators (Departments of Real Estate, Departments of Commerce, etc., depending on the state).
More specifically, the spokesperson said those complaints center on “the banning of listings and the false advertising around their display,” echoing allegations the brokerage has made publicly and in court regarding how portals—specifically Zillow—describe for-sale properties as “off market” when it bans listings that were previously marketed “privately.”
Zillow pushed back in a statement to RISMedia, with a spokesperson accusing Compass of “looking for additional vines to fight the same battle it’s losing in court,” seemingly in reference to an ongoing antitrust lawsuit currently playing out in Chicago.
“When a home is shopped around privately to some buyers and listed to all buyers later, we don’t show that on Zillow because it’s not fair to millions of homebuyers without insider connections. That’s not false advertising; it’s standing up for a fair and transparent housing market,” a Zillow spokesperson said.
MRED and Compass say Zillow not entitled to court order
In a supplemental post-hearing brief filed by defendants Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) and Compass, the defendants argue that Zillow is not entitled to relief because “any harm, if it exists at all, is self-inflicted.”
“If Zillow wants MRED’s feed, the ‘lifeblood’ of its business that it receives virtually for free, all Zillow has to do is not subjectively ban listings,” they claim.
The 40-page filing, submitted to Judge John J. Tharp Jr. in the Northern District of Illinois, frames the dispute as “two sets of rules at war with each other”—Zillow’s Listing Access Standards, which the defendants call a “ban,” and MRED’s display rules, which bar what MRED considers non-objective filtering of its listing data.
Real-REMAX deal clears DOJ and FTC scrutiny
According to a July 13 regulatory filing, Real’s bid to purchase REMAX for $880 million is moving forward—as far as the Department of Justice (DOJ) is concerned.
In a statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Real said that the DOJ had granted “early termination” of the mandatory waiting period. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), this only happens when both the DOJ and FTC “have completed their review and determined they will not take any enforcement action during the waiting period.”
The deal must still be approved by shareholders, with a vote scheduled for Aug. 14.
Greystar accused of Fair Housing violations
The largest apartment owner in the United States, Greystar, has been accused of refusing to accept Section 8 housing vouchers in several states—California, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia and Washington, D.C.—where that is illegal, according to court filings.
According to the Housing Rights Initiative (HRI), the allegations stem from an undercover investigation in which HRI Fair Housing testers posed as prospective tenants using Housing Choice Vouchers (“Section 8”).
“When testers called Greystar buildings, they got the same answer over and over—no vouchers,” said Aaron Carr, HRI founder and executive director. “As the largest landlord in America, Greystar should be setting the standard of best practices for the nation, not systematically rejecting legitimate prospective tenants. This is an opportunity for civil rights enforcement agencies to hold the most powerful rental housing company in the country accountable. No landlord of this size should be permitted to break the law with impunity.”
