Compass say that the rules of NWMLS are competitive

In his motion to reject the case that was submitted at the end of June, NWMLS claims that Compass does not claim a recognizable relevant market ‘, that his’ own allegations undermine some claims of competitive combat effects and the pro-competitive nature of the rules of NWML’s’ and that the complaint does not cause any damage to the complaint.

In his answer, Compass came from the gate, referring to NWMLs as “a monopoly created by combining other competing real estate agents”, and claims that “his immense power is abused by checking how houses are sold in the area of Seattle, the blocking of their houses and broker compresses.”

Compass repeated its claim that NWMLS shakes sellers and compass by forcing brokers to submit all their offers to NWMLs before they market them. Moreover, Compass claims that NWMLs quickly “another rule that allowed on his face to allow a broker to allow certain offers before they submit them to NWMLs,” and that “a third rule that also allows the face, allows the pre-marketing of certain mentions.”

According to Compass, Discovery will show whether NWMLS has taken these actions to protect the alleged monopoly, or to protect the committees of local established brokers, or both.

“We know that NWMLS does not do this to protect home sellers or competition,” said the answer letter.

Pre-marketing ‘Anchored in federal antitrust agency declarations’

Compass argues that the importance of pre-marketing of a property “is laid down in federal antitrust agency statements that criticize the compulsory submission policy, such as NWMLSs, and the antitrust policy of the real estate agent Trade Association, which protects exclusive office extensions.”

In short, Compass of two arguments from NWMLS goes into his motion to reject the suit. The brokerage requirer claims that although NWMLS uses words such as “transparency” and “fairness” to justify his policy, there is “no evidence and no accusations in the complaint, demonstrating that such issues are present with pre-marketing.”

In addition, Compass is taking advantage of NWMLS that it is immune for control because Compass agreed to follow the rules of the MLS, again emphasizes that his claim that NWMLs have changed its rules to block compass to offer pre-marketing choices to sellers.

NWMLS behavior and rules are ‘competitive’

Compass also argues that it has successfully promised its federal and national antitrust claims and that the behavior and rules of NWMLS are in -down competitiveness, which means that the behavior and the rules are only competitive. Compass states that the rules are in themselves competitive because they block the competition by forcing agents to submit all their mention to the MLS, which, according to the claimant, eliminates competition.

“As claimed in the complaint, the behavior of NWMLS hinders the ability of another listing service to compete with NWMLS by demanding the vast majority of brokers on the Dominant List Service (NWMLS), even if other listing service products are better on the merits,” the short states.

If the Court does not agree with a necessity approach, Compass also claims that the behavior of NWMLS is also competitive for this under the Rule or Reason approach.

“The complaint shows a ‘substantial competitive capacity of directly’ by showing ‘proof of actual harmful effects on competition, such as reduced output, increased prices or reduced quality in the relevant market’. So ‘no research into market definition and market power is required’,” the short states.

The assignment also focuses on the Duty-to-Deal arguments of NWMLS, whereby the MLS repeater claims that it cannot be held liable for monopolization claims “on the basis of its rules because it has no duty to deal with compass.” This is the same argument Zillow In his answer to the motion of Compass for a provisional order in that lawsuit related to the policy for the access standards of Zillow.

Compass argues that the rule does not apply because it claims that NWMLS creates and maintains a monopoly, and because it claims that NWMLS “imposes competition restrictions on other competitors.”

Because of these arguments, Compass claims that rejecting the case without prejudice would be inappropriate. If the suit is not rejected, it will continue to the discovery. A test date was set on 8 June 2026.