Zillow lawsuit sparks LinkedIn debate over listings transparency, control

An industry-wide debate has broken out in the comment section of a LinkedIn post made by Zillow’s chief industry development officer, regarding the antitrust lawsuit his firm filed against Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) and Compass on Tuesday. 

In the post, Samuelson referred to the lawsuit, in which Zillow claims that the Chicagoland MLS and the nation’s largest brokerage conspired to withhold listing data and pressure Zillow to carry private “hidden” listings nationwide, as a “big step in standing up for a fair and honest housing market.”

“MRED and Compass conspired to cut off Zillow’s access to Chicago-area listing data, not because we violated any legitimate rule, but because we’re committed to giving every buyer in the market the same opportunity to access inventory, every seller in the market the widest possible audience, and every agent in the market a fair shot at competing,” Samuelson wrote. “When we didn’t back down on our commitment, they announced a national alliance designed to extend that pressure everywhere.” 

Due to this, Samuelson said Zillow decided to file its lawsuit. By allegedly exercising “monopoly control” over listings in a certain area as a “weapon” against Zillow, Samuelson says that the MLS is operating against its core mission of being a benefit to consumers, agents and the broader housing market. 

“Thousands of independent agents and small brokerages built their businesses around a fair, open market,” he wrote. “Private listing networks threaten that market, and the conduct MRED and Compass engaged in threatens anyone who tries to defend it.”

People over corporate power struggles

As of midday on Wednesday, less than 24 hours since it was shared, this post had sparked over 200 comments. While some commenters noted that the lawsuit would be a particularly interesting one for the industry to follow as it could impact the governance of MLSs, data access and competitive practices in the industry, others used the space to reopen a years long debate about transparency and the role of the MLS and portals like Zillow in the housing ecosystem. 

“Consumers absolutely deserve transparency and access to listings, but as Realtors, many of us also feel frustrated watching third-party platforms profit from our listings, our marketing and our relationships while often delivering inaccurate data or selling leads right back to agents,” Erin Crumbley, a Florida-based Realtor, wrote in a comment. 

In her view, the MLS was “originally designed to encourage cooperation between brokerages and create fairness in the marketplace,” and that private listing networks “can create concerns about equal exposure for sellers and access for buyers.”

“What worries me most is that the industry keeps moving further away from the actual relationship between the Realtor and the client. Technology should support the transaction, not position itself as the center of it,” she wrote. “No matter where people stand on Zillow, Compass or MLS policy, I think most Realtors can agree on one thing: consumers deserve accurate information, ethical representation and a market that stays focused on people instead of corporate power struggles.” 

But not everyone was as capable of seeing both sides of the argument as Crumbley. 

In her comment, Cathie Branham, who identifies herself as an eXp Realty agent, claimed that “Zillow is Deceiving EVERY SINGLE consumer who visits Zillow’s site by STEERING them to preferred Zillow flex team agents while also STEERING THEM to your lending department.”

Branham and others continued on to claim that Zillow does not care about fairness or transparency, but instead only cares about its finances and that this is what is actually motivating the lawsuit. 

Sharing some similar thoughts, Eric Johnson, the CEO of the Compass-brokered real estate team Mission Realty Advisors, commented that it is “interesting” that Zillow is framing this lawsuit as a move for consumer protection, as he claims that Zillow “helped normalize ‘Coming Soon’ listings years ago when it benefited platform growth.”

“Broadcasting every property everywhere immediately isn’t a strategy. It’s commoditization,” Johnson wrote. “Zillow, a dominant portal, wants to dictate how homeowners market their homes while simultaneously acting as the marketplace, the lead seller, the ranking algorithm and the policy enforcer. That’s not neutrality. That’s being the player, the referee and the profiteer all at once.”

Support for the portal

Although many commenters used their platforms to air their grievances regarding Zillow, some expressed support for the portal. In his comment, Greg Berkemer, said he agreed with Samuelson’s post, noting that even in a perfect world it would be difficult to maintain transparent and fair access to data in an imperfect marketplace. 

“Historically, MLS was exclusively a B-to-B network for participants and subscribers. Once access was given to publicly viewable data fields of MLS listings and often combined MLS databases, MLS now serves B-to-B and the Benefit of Consumers,” Berkemer, who identifies himself as a former executive vice president of California Desert Association of Realtors, wrote. “In those local markets where one or a few large Brokerage(s) have dominate market share, private networks, agreements and strategies to maintain dominance will arise. Whether they survive public policy or legal scrutiny, time will tell.”

While others don’t express the same support for Zillow and Samuelson as Berkemer, they do share the belief that this is a much larger conversation than simply Zillow vs. MRED and Compass. 

“The real issue is whether housing data stays open and transparent or becomes increasingly controlled by private networks,” William Brincken, the founder of Brinks Equity Group, a multifamily real estate investment firm, wrote. “That impacts buyers, sellers, investors, and smaller agents far more than most people realize. Curious to see where the industry lands on balancing exclusivity versus market transparency long term.”

Looking ahead it appears that the industry’s latest legal battle may be the opening to an even larger debate over data and listing access, control and transparency.