NWMLS wants to use a Zillow ruling in its battle with Compass
Seattle-based MLS argued that a ruling in a case involving Zillow has parallels with its own legal battle against Compass.
Northwest Multiple Listing Service is monitoring Compass’ ongoing lawsuits and trying to use them to its advantage in the MLS’s own case against the nation’s largest brokerage.
In early February, Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York denied Compass’ request to halt Zillow’s Listing Access Standards rule. The rule prohibits listings from the portal if they are publicly marketed but not made available to Zillow within one day.
The judge said at the time that Compass had shown no chance of success in the case, but allowed the lawsuit to continue. She also noted that Compass is free to continue using its 3-Phased Marketing Strategy (3PM), in which Compass agents market listings outside the MLS, then move them to “coming soon” status and ultimately list them on the MLS, but would in turn lose those listings from being on Zillow.
NWMLS drew attention to Judge Vargas’ ruling in this case in February and requested an explanation of the ruling’s relevance to NWMLS’ request to dismiss the case at Compass. The brokerage first sued NWMLS last April, calling the multiple listing service a “monopolist.”
Now, the MLS has once again urged the court to consider the ruling in a new response to a response to Compass’ motion.
“The [Southern District Court of New York’s] Order provides many direct parallels relevant to the Court’s review of NWMLS’s pending motion to dismiss, particularly with respect to the SDNY’s finding of a nationwide relevant market, and its analysis of the importance of the purchasing market to Compass’ business, and its antitrust impact,” NWMLS’ response states.
“Compass seeks to downplay the relevance of Compass v. Zillow on procedural grounds,” the response continues, adding that the court’s order “is not specific to the procedural posture of the case.”
Representatives for Compass and NWMLS did not immediately respond to Inman’s request for comment.
Compass has not yet responded in court. But the brokerage did respond to NWMLS’s request in February. In that response, Compass argued that the similarities NWMLS tried to draw between the cases were “false parallels.” The brokerage also argued that the claims at the heart of the Zillow case were “fundamentally different” from those in the NWMLS case, and therefore no parallels could be drawn between them.
Compass ultimately concluded that the ruling in the Zillow case “has no persuasive value” in the lawsuit against NWMLS.
However, NWMLS’s response claims the opposite.
“Significantly, Compass’ response fully addressed the substance of the SDNY order, but failed to establish any compelling reason that this Court should override the SDNY’s comprehensively reasoned decision to deny Compass’ request for an order,” NWMLS said.
NWMLS also argued that the order in the Zillow case supports its claims that Compass failed to show that the multi-listing service harmed both sides of the market.
“Compass’s complaint contains a striking number of references buyersmerely claiming that NWMLS’ enforcement of the rules is harmful sellers participation in Compass’ 3PM program,” NWMLS said. “However, the pro-competitive justifications for the NWMLS rules that support buyers and prevent free riding must also be weighed – even at the motion to dismiss stage.”
The NWMLS filing further states that the order in the Zillow case “affirms the interest of buyers and the buying side of the real estate brokerage business.”
Email Lillian Dickerson
