Editor’s note: The COURT REPORT is RISMedia’s weekly look at current and upcoming lawsuits, investigations and other legal developments around real estate.
NAR wants Compass’s data and depositions on private listings, CCP
Compass is not directly involved in a long-running lawsuit filed by the now-defunct PLS.com, which sued the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) and big MLSs in 2020, alleging the Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP) violated antitrust laws.
But NAR is seeking to depose Compass CEO Robert Reffkin, as well as a handful of other executives and agents as part of the litigation, focused broadly on the policy and Compass’s use of private listings—something the brokerage claimed in court is more about “retaliation” than any legitimate legal purpose.
“(T)he subpoenas are retaliatory and oppressive and were served for the purpose of intimidating Compass’s witnesses to not comply with PLS’s subpoenas,” Compass wrote, also saying that the requests were overbroad and “burdensome” for people and entities not even party to the lawsuit in question.
NAR’s subpoena of Reffkin is specifically seeking communications and documents from Reffkin showing how many listings Compass has offered on any private listing platform (including PLS.com when it was operational) and any communications with the Department of Justice regarding NAR policies.
The subpoena also specifically asks Reffkin “(i)f you intend to offer testimony that other industry actors face legal exposure if they abide by any NAR policy,” and demands the underlying data for a study on private listings Compass released earlier this year, as well as documents related to “litigation funding for legal matters related to NAR policies.”
According to Compass’s court filing, NAR “seemed perfectly happy” to drop its subpoena, as long as Reffkin agreed not to cooperate with PLS.com’s subpoenas—which Compass offered as proof that NAR is simply trying to prevent Reffkin and Compass from providing supportive testimony or documents to PLS.com.
In a statement, an NAR spokesperson said the organization “stands behind its right to pursue appropriate discovery, including obtaining relevant documents and information necessary to fairly and legally execute its case.”
NAR promised a comprehensive legal risk assessment as part of its new strategic plan, stepping back MLS policy mandates but largely standing behind CCP, which Reffkin and Compass have sought to undo for multiple years.
Compass is currently locked in a multi-pronged legal battle with more than half a dozen big MLSs, having promised to spend “millions” to sue over versions of CCP, alleging the rules violate federal and state antitrust laws. The MLS side has explored multiple “legal defense funds” to combat these (and other) lawsuits.
CRMLS denies “sudden race to the courthouse” in early arguments
Facing off against Compass in one of two parallel court cases, CRMLS told a federal judge in New York City that its lawsuit over listing rules was both appropriate in scope and jurisdiction, as the two sides square off over geographic and technical issues.
After Compass urged Federal Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil to move the case to California, CRMLS pushed back in a letter last Friday, telling Vyskocil that New York—where Compass is headquartered—is the proper venue, and also argued its request for a declaration affirming its rules are not illegal is not improper.
“The relevant evidence and witnesses are in New York. The conduct at issue is Compass’s nationwide ‘3-Phased Marketing’/‘See It First’ strategy, which Compass offers everywhere,’” CRMLS noted. “CRMLS’s choice of forum warrants deference.”
The wrangling over jurisdictions underscores the larger legal battle, which is likely to be protracted and bitter. CRMLS first sued Compass in New York, after Compass promised it would sue CRMLS over its listing policies that govern off-MLS marketing. That move gives CRMLS “first-filed” status, the MLS argued, while Compass argued CRMLS is “forum-shopping”—seeking a federal district that has favorable precedent or judges.
Compass is also seeking a temporary pause in the case, which CRMLS opposed, as Compass argues the lawsuit should be thrown out as “improper.”
Broadly, CRMLS said its request for affirmation that its listing rules don’t violate antitrust laws is also proper, noting that Compass first threatened CRMLS with legal action in 2024, which the MLS said represents “public, repeated threats to its core rules.”
Finally, CRMLS points to another lawsuit by six other MLSs—also filed in New York—which is likely to cover many of the same legal and factual issues, meaning “judicial economy” would be best served by staying in New York.
Elliman agent: “Ugh, they’re Black.”
A New York City woman, who is Black, is suing Douglas Elliman and a (now former) broker who accidentally sent her a racist text message as they were meeting to view a property.
Lisa Renee Olaso claims that back in June, she was waiting to meet an Elliman agent in Flushing when she received a text message from Helen Tzelios, an Elliman broker, that stated “Ugh, they’re Black,” in reference to Olaso and her fiance.
“The message was apparently intended for someone other than Plaintiffs,” the lawsuit says.
Olaso confronted Tzelios, she said, who acknowledged the message was meant for someone else—specifically the owner of the property Olaso was trying to view—and claimed the text “related to alleged prior problems involving Black individuals in the neighborhood or in premises (sic).”
Olaso said she did not view the property that day, and did not work with Tzelios. She and her fiance were “humiliated, offended, and emotionally distressed” by the interaction, according to the lawsuit.
Douglas Elliman told local media that Tzelios is no longer affiliated with the company.
Olaso is suing for unspecified damages under both state and federal housing discrimination statutes.
Lawsuit against Compass over StreetEasy boycott expands with new plaintiff
A lawsuit filed back in August against Compass, alleging the mega-brokerage hoarded listings and drove up rents in New York City, is adding new allegations and evidence as the plaintiff claims Compass “achieved monopoly status” in violation of both state and federal law.
Adding claims of unjust enrichment and explicitly delineating a proposed “brokers fee class” of anyone who paid a fee “either directly or indirectly” to a Compass broker in New York City from December 2024 onward, the updated lawsuit also more explicitly calls out what it describes as widespread anticompetitive conduct by the mega-brokerage.
“Compass achieved monopoly status by acquiring nearly all of its competitors,” the updated lawsuit says.
The lawsuit makes further, specific allegations around the impact and scope of Compass’s alleged efforts to monopolize the market in the Big Apple, claiming the company and its affiliates closed more than double the sales of the next largest brokerage (Douglas Elliman) and more than the next top 20 competitors combined.
“Compass’ control over such a massive share of rental units in New York City means that they can override normal functioning market demand to different factors through their own pricing,” the lawsuit said.
The new plaintiff, seeking to lead the class action, is a renter who used StreetEasy, the Zillow-owned portal utilized by both consumers and agents in New York City, who had a brokers fee “passed down to him” in August of 2026 and claims he paid a “supracompetitive price” for the unit.
