Well, it looks like the opposition to Compass and its efforts to change MLS cooperation rules is growing pretty quickly. Yesterday, October 21, 2026, six more multiple listing services joined forces and filed a federal lawsuit against Compass in the Southern District of New York. The MLSs include Arizona Regional MLS, Bridge MLS, Canopy MLS, REcolorado, Hive MLS and Doorify MLS. Like California Regional MLS (CRMLS), which filed suit against Compass earlier this month, these MLSs are asking the court to declare that their cooperation rules are lawful and prevent Compass from pursuing its threatened antitrust claims against those rules.
I’ve been following this dispute closely, beginning with Compass’s initial threats against CRMLS, followed by CRMLS taking the offensive and suing Compass, Compass filing its own antitrust lawsuit, and just yesterday, OneKey MLS publicly rejecting Compass’s demands. Now six additional MLSs have decided they aren’t going to sit around waiting for Compass to sue them either.
According to the 35-page complaint, Compass sent substantially similar demand letters to all six MLSs in September, threatening federal antitrust litigation unless they agreed to stop enforcing rules requiring publicly marketed listings to be submitted to the MLS. The complaint argues that Compass wants to continue benefiting from the listings shared by competing brokers while selectively withholding its own publicly marketed listings. The MLSs maintain that this undermines the cooperation and transparency that make the MLS valuable to consumers and brokers alike.
One thing I found particularly interesting in the complaint is that the MLSs directly challenge Compass’s argument that this is all about seller choice. They point out that their rules already provide options for sellers who genuinely want privacy, including office exclusive listings and various delayed marketing options. What Compass wants, however, is the ability to publicly market properties while withholding them from the cooperative MLS. That’s a pretty significant distinction, and one I’ve been making since this dispute began.
I’ve been in the real estate business for more than 45 years, and I believe the cooperative MLS system is one of the things that makes our industry competitive, particularly for independent brokerages and the consumers they represent. Here in St. Louis, MARIS allows brokers of all sizes to share listing information and compete based upon the service and value they provide. I have a hard time seeing how allowing the largest brokerage companies to build inventories of publicly marketed homes that aren’t equally available to competing brokers improves competition or serves buyers and sellers.
Compass certainly has the right to challenge rules it believes violate antitrust laws, and ultimately the courts will have to decide whether these MLS cooperation requirements are lawful. But I’m encouraged to see more MLS organizations willing to defend the cooperative marketplace rather than simply give in to the threat of expensive litigation. With CRMLS already in court, OneKey and Unlock MLS pushing back, and now six additional MLSs filing suit, this is turning into a much broader industry battle than Compass may have anticipated.
In my opinion, this isn’t just about Compass or the MLSs. It’s about whether the future of real estate will be built around a transparent marketplace where brokers compete to serve consumers, or one where the largest companies gain an advantage by controlling access to listings. I know which approach I believe is better for consumers, and I’m glad to see more MLSs standing up for it.
Read the actual lawsuit: Arizona Regional MLS, et al. v. Compass, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-09253, filed October 21, 2026 (35-page federal complaint).
