Wednesday, October 7, 2026
Page 1
California MLS Group Sues Compass Inc. to Block Potential Suit Over Listing Rules
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A California real-estate listing group has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Compass Inc., the largest brokerage house in the country, seeking a declaration that its rules requiring agents to submit information about publicly marketed properties to the plaintiff’s platform do not run afoul of federal antitrust laws or the Golden State’s statutory counterpart.
The pleading, filed on Monday by California Regional Multiple Listing Service Inc. (“CRMLS”), references a Sept. 8 demand letter sent by Compass’ outside counsel, Nathan P. Eimer of Chicago’s Eimer Stahl LLP, threatening federal action unless the plaintiff agreed, by close of business Tuesday, that it would stop fining agents at “1% of list price,” capped at $2,500, for publicly marketing “office exclusive” listings.
CRMLS alleged that it is the operator of one of the largest multiple listing services (“MLS”) in the country, which it describes as “a network of real estate professionals…that agree to cooperate…by following the reasonable rules…to timely and comprehensively share all the details and access to properties that are for sale or rent.”
Internal Rules
At issue are a series of internal rules that together provide that a participating broker who openly advertises a property must submit the listing to the plaintiff’s MLS platform unless the unless the seller opts for what CRMLS calls a “No Cooperation Listing,” which is withheld from the MLS and may not be publicly marketed. The complaint alleges:
“This case concerns the efforts of Compass…to bully the real estate industry into abandoning rules designed to promote transparency, broad consumer access, and fair competition among brokerages. At issue are rules that serve a straightforward purpose: if a seller authorizes their agent to seek buyers from outside the brokerage, all brokerages participating in the multiple listing service…should have the opportunity to connect their buyer clients with that property.”
The plaintiff added:
“Compass…seeks to dismantle these rules so that it can pursue its stated corporate strategy of controlling for-sale property inventory as a competitive weapon….Having already sued others in pursuit of this agenda, and having sent demand letters threatening additional litigation, Compass now threatens to sue CRMLS unless it capitulates to Compass’s demands by October 6, 2026. CRMLS brings this declaratory judgment action to establish that its Cooperation Rules are lawful under federal and state antitrust law because they cause no anticompetitive harm, and are in fact widely recognized as procompetitive.”
Declaratory Relief
Declaratory and injunctive relief is sought under §1 of the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act, codified at Business and Professions Code §16720, which applies the same standard as its federal counterpart. Asserting that the group’s rules “do not produce any anticompetitive effects” because they “do not raise prices, reduce output, exclude competitors from the market, or diminish innovation,” the plaintiff claimed:
“[T]he Cooperation Rules are lawful because they have substantial procompetitive justifications that outweigh any anticompetitive effects. The Cooperation Rules enhance market transparency, increase the output of the MLS, preserve the cooperative product, prevent free-riding, and ensure that consumers on both sides of the marketplace—home buyers and home sellers—benefit from comprehensive and accurate listing information. Courts have recognized that MLS rules serve the legitimate purpose of maintaining ‘fresh, comprehensive, and accurate listings,’….”
Compass’ demand letter characterizes CRMLS’ rules as a “horizontal agreement among competitors” which, if accepted by a court, could subject them to per se condemnation. CRMLS rejected the description in the pleading, arguing that the MLS-to-broker relationship is vertical and subject to the less stringent “rule of reason.”
Fines for Violations
CRMLS acknowledged that it issued “89 fines” last year for violating the rules but alleged:
“The Cooperation Rules do not constitute a group boycott. A group boycott requires an agreement to exclude competitors from the market. The Cooperation Rules do not exclude anyone from the market; they require only that participants who publicly market listings also share those listings on the MLS. Participants remain free to operate as No Cooperation Listings, or to use non-exclusive commission agreements, or to choose not to publicly market listings at all.”
The pleading was filed in New York as the defendant is headquartered in that state and conducts substantial business in the Southern District jurisdiction.
The case is California Regional Multiple Listing Service Inc. v. Compass Inc., 1:26-cv-08796.
Compass filed a lawsuit against Zillow last year over that entity’s listing rules. In February, U.S. District Court Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York denied Compass’ request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff had not shown that it was likely to prevail on its claims under the Sherman Act.
The case was dismissed without prejudice after Zillow announced that it would stop banning listings that were first publicly marketed on the Compass family of websites or Redfin.com.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company