MRED’s private listings “reinforce segregation in housing” because homes in majority-white Chicagoland neighborhoods are 2.2 times more likely to be listed on MRED’s Private Listing Network than those in majority non-white neighborhoods, Zillow said, citing an analysis of the Chicagoland MLS’s data.
In majority-white areas, 7.9% of homes for sale within MRED were listed privately, while only 3.4% were listed privately in majority non-white areas, according to the analysis, which looked at over 40,000 active MRED listings on Oct. 21.
“Private marketing might sound appealing, but it risks deepening segregation and limiting opportunity, moving us further from the fair and open housing market consumers deserve,” Zillow Senior Economist Orphe Divounguy said. “The data show clear disparities, and good intentions are no longer an excuse for expanding digital redlining.”
The Zillow analysis is the latest volley in a back-and-forth between Zillow and MRED over MRED’s Private Listing Network, which does not comport with Zillow’s listing standards access policy. The policy bans listings not entered into the MLS within a day of public marketing. Zillow began implementing it on June 30; thus far, it has not implemented it in Chicago.
MRED President and CEO Rebecca Jensen on Nov. 12 published an open letter defending the Private Listing Network, which the MLS launched in 2015, calling it “a cornerstone of MRED’s offerings to brokers.”
“MRED’s Private Listing Network (PLN) was created to balance technology, compliance and compassion — giving sellers and agents flexibility during life-changing moments like divorce, death or downsizing,” Jensen wrote. “Without imposing arbitrary ‘Coming Soon’ timelines or rigid listing data and media submission rules, MRED intentionally designed the PLN to adapt to human circumstances, not force listing brokers to be caught between MLS rules and providing service to their sellers.”
Homes listed on the network sold 40% faster — 13 days vs. 22 — and at a higher value — 97.5% vs. 95.4% — than standard listings, Jensen added.
In its analysis, Zillow said the racial gap persisted after accounting for home price, type, location and broker activity. For example, among higher-priced homes, the private-listing rates for majority white and majority non-white neighborhoods were 8.9% and 5.1%, respectively, Zillow said.
After Zillow published its analysis, MRED cited a December 2024 Zillow strategy document that became public in its ongoing battle with Compass, which filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against it in June, alleging that Zillow’s private-listing ban precludes it from pursuing its own business strategies — including private listings — due to the platform’s monopolistic hold on home listings.
The 30-page document outlines a strategy to be “more aggressive with hardline tactics to keep ALL listings in IDX, on Zillow.”
“Mobilize local and national organizations to publicly warn brokers and agents on the fair housing risks of reduced access to real estate information,” the document states.
“Their criticism of MRED’s PLN does not seem to be about protecting consumers or advancing fair housing,” MRED said in a statement. “It appears to be part of a broader strategy to secure complete control of listing distribution and undermine the cooperative foundation of MRED.”
Zillow is a for-profit company that never cared about the integrity of the information on their websites and now they’re mad that they can’t misinform consumers about private listing information on sellers who want a private listing. It’s also a blatant admission from Zillow that they don’t even understand how the private network is used. I decided a long time ago that Zillow is only interested in Zillow – not consumers. And, as a licensed Realtor, our top priority is to protect consumers. When a company puts their own interests ahead of consumers, it’s time to stop dealing with that company.
If you haven’t read the details of the planned tactics to fight back against the MLSs that continue to permit private listings. I highly recommend you take a moment. Even the synopsis provided a week ago is more than enough if you’re not willing to read all 30 pages. The PDF is behind that hyperlink. Regardless, they talk about reducing the viewership of listings that were listed prior to penalize the realtors and their brokerages at the expense of the seller. It’s pretty clear from this internal document that they’re interests lie in making money and that they definitely are not concerned about protecting the Consumer when you realize their own internal documents, talk about creating artificial limits to viewership on listings. In effect they’re suggesting restricting access. How is that any different? At the end of the day Zillow is a company that is a cancer on this industry. Maybe one or two of the big MLS boards should just consider declining to offer them the IDX feed altogether. I’m sure Zillow won’t do well if they suddenly don’t have listings in four or five or six of the major marketplace across the United States.
There could not be a more wrong take from a ” for profit” company who received FOR FREE from the NAR access to our MLS and then turned around and would charge 8 realtors per zip code anywhere from $200-750 apiece for a chance to fight for our own leads. Any Realtor who has half a brain is checking the private listing network and has their buyer client set up on a search for homes that include the private listing network. Zillow’s reign is over and they are trying to throw as much crap on the wall as they can to see what will stick. This accusation will not.