Skip to content
Tech News
← Back to articles

Hidden Zillow listings created fake supply shock, raising NYC rents, lawsuit says

read original more articles
Why This Matters

This lawsuit highlights how monopolistic practices by real estate firms like Compass can manipulate rental markets, artificially inflating prices and limiting consumer choices. The case underscores the importance of transparency and competition in the tech-driven real estate industry, impacting both consumers and industry players. It also raises concerns about the influence of large tech platforms and their role in maintaining fair market practices.

Key Takeaways

This week, two New York City renters filed a class action complaint alleging that a brokerage business called Compass—which has been boycotting posting listings on free digital platforms like Zillow—has now delisted so many rental units that it has created a fake supply shock that is artificially raising rents.

According to plaintiffs, Peter Castaneda and Haley Gelfand, Compass has bought so many brokerage firms over the past decade-plus that it maintains a monopoly, controlling “over 80 percent of the rental unit listings available for renters in Manhattan based on 2025 data.”

With that monopoly, Compass can “literally dictate pricing for as much as 80 percent of Manhattan’s rental units,” renters argued. And now, Compass is allegedly trying to manipulate prices on other platforms, as well.

Supposedly scheming to raise rents in order to raise broker fees often pegged to rent prices, Compass went to war with Zillow, the most popular free real estate platform that never charges broker fees.

In New York City, a Zillow-owned platform called “StreetEasy” makes it easier for New Yorkers to find a unit without paying a broker fee. However, seemingly hoping to force more people to turn to brokers to find homes that couldn’t be found on free platforms, Compass started delisting thousands of homes from Zillow earlier this year. Renters’ complaint cited a Compass “playbook” that allegedly “involves hiding listings from the public” in an attempt to “enable its own agents to double-dip to increase revenue per transaction, boost its stock price, and effectively ignore the consumer.”

In response to the mass-delistings, Zillow announced new standards excluding those private listings from ever appearing on its sites. That move was designed to curb the practice of hiding listings, since sellers likely wouldn’t want to lose the option of listing on Zillow if brokers can’t find a buyer. But the retaliation prompted Compass to file an antitrust suit, claiming that Zillow was the one trying to monopolize listings. However, Compass voluntarily dismissed that suit in March after a judge ruled that Compass was unlikely to succeed on the merits, writing that it seems clear that Zillow can’t have a monopoly if home buyers like to research across different platforms.