MLSListings has joined the lawsuit against Compass over listing-cooperation rules, adding a Northern California MLS to an existing plaintiff group already pursuing the case in the Southern District of New York.
According to HousingWire's Nov. 2 report, MLSListings was added through an amended complaint to the earlier case filed by Arizona Regional MLS, Bridge MLS, Canopy MLS, REcolorado, Hive MLS, and Doorify MLS. Scope note: this filing detail is based on HousingWire's reporting and public article summary. We did not directly review the court docket or amended complaint.
Cover image credit: HousingWire
What the report says
The new development is not a brand-new standalone case by MLSListings, but its reported addition to an existing MLS plaintiff group that is challenging Compass over how publicly marketed listings should interact with MLS cooperation rules. HousingWire's earlier Oct. report on the case said the original six MLS plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief in New York, arguing that they should be able to enforce those rules without violating antitrust law. That earlier report is here: MLSs sue Compass in proactive move to defend cooperation rules.
How the two sides are framing it
The MLS side has been framing the dispute as a fight over transparency, cooperation, and equal access to publicly marketed listings. In its own Oct. 5 statement, CRMLS said it filed for declaratory judgment after rejecting Compass's demands, arguing that its rules support an open and competitive marketplace.
Compass has framed the issue differently. In its Oct. 16 statement, Compass said it sued CRMLS because homeowners should be able to publicly market homes outside the MLS on terms they choose with their agents, without agents being fined for following those instructions.
Those sources describe competing claims and competing policy arguments, not a ruling establishing which side is correct. We did not review the docket directly for this post.
My view: privacy and an open marketplace
Commentary from Rob Luecke Jr.: I side with the MLS organizations on the policy question here. Sellers should absolutely have the option to keep their properties private. But if a home is being publicly marketed, while access is deliberately restricted from competing brokerages, that starts to create a more closed marketplace.
To me, the purpose of the MLS is to support a cooperative marketplace where buyers and sellers benefit from broad exposure and real competition. That does not mean every seller must go fully public. It does mean there is an important distinction between genuine privacy and public marketing that limits who gets to participate.
