A judge has rejected an amicus curiae brief filed on June 10 by CoStar Group, the operator of Homes.com, which opposed Zillow’s motion in its legal battle between MRED. The filing came shortly after a federal judge granted Zillow a preliminary injunction on May 22, restoring its access to MRED’s licensed listing data.  

In its brief, CoStar argued that Zillow’s requested relief “would reward Zillow’s own anticompetitive conduct and create a profoundly asymmetric competitive landscape, contrary to the public interest.”  

The company contends that Zillow seeks “unfettered access to MLS listings, while retaining the right to ban rival premarket listings,” asserting that Zillow Preview effectively blocks competitors such as Homes.com from accessing those same exclusive listings.  

The brief further stated that “Zillow has grown so large that it believes that only a listing on Zillow’s network is public and pro-consumer. And by that logic, Zillow need not share it further. By contrast, a listing not available to Zillow’s network is, by definition, hidden and anti-consumer. Zillow needs a reality check.”  

CoStar said that Zillow’s motion is a part of its “scheme to expand its ecosystem and replace the nonprofit MLS system.”  

In response to the filing, Matt Kreamer, a communications director with Zillow, rejected CoStar’s argument in a statement to Chicago Agent:  

“CoStar and Compass are making the same flawed argument: that premarketing and private marketing are the same thing. They are not, and the distinction matters enormously. Zillow Preview is premarketing — publicly visible for any buyer to see it, save it and connect with the listing agent directly for free. No buyer is required to work with any specific brokerage to access it. Compass Private Exclusives are pay-to-play private marketing. Those listings are hidden from buyers unless they work with a Compass agent. The explicit purpose is to route listings through Compass’s own network before — or instead of — making them available to the public. Calling those the same thing is a word game designed to muddy a clear distinction, and it is exactly the kind of conflation that harms buyers and sellers when it goes unchallenged.”  

At the time of filing, Gene Boxer, CoStar’s general counsel, criticized Zillow’s approach, saying the company is seeking a court order that would force MLSs to hand over their listings.  

“Zillow wants a court order forcing MLSs to hand over their listings while Zillow hoards its own exclusive premarket inventory — a breathtaking ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ proposition,” Boxer said. “Zillow condemns the very exclusive listing practices it pioneered with Zillow Preview, under which over 60 leading brokerages feed their most valuable premarket listings exclusively to Zillow. You cannot come to court seeking equitable relief while engaged in the very conduct you complain about. Zillow doesn’t have clean hands — it has a monopolist’s playbook: lock up supply, lock out competitors and sue anyone who gets in the way. The court should see this motion for what it is: an attempt to weaponize the judicial system to entrench Zillow’s dominance at the expense of competition, consumers and the MLS system that has served the industry for decades.” 

On June 16, CoStar provided Chicago Agent with the following statement from Boxer: 

“We sought to call attention to Zillow’s obvious hypocrisy: Zillow is asking the court to guarantee its access to MLS listing data while simultaneously creating its own premarket listing channel and seeking to restrict others. That contradiction matters to the entire residential real estate industry. Zillow cannot claim to be defending openness and transparency while building a system that advantages Zillow, withholds inventory from competing platforms and undermines the very principles it invokes in court. 

Whether or not the court considered our brief, we believe it is important for brokers, agents, MLSs, consumers and regulators to understand what Zillow is really asking for: open access for itself, but different rules for everyone else. Zillow has already had plenty of time to refute the facts in our brief, but it hasn’t, because it can’t. We expect that the other parties to the case will continue to highlight our arguments as additional reasons why Zillow should lose. We are pleased to stand with the industry to expose Zillow’s wrongdoing.”