NWMLS says it has ‘no duty to deal’ with Compass

Compass and Northwest MLS (NWMLS) are continuing their war of words.

Since Compass filed its antitrust suit against the NWMLS in April, alleging that the MLS’s rule requiring listings to be entered within 24 hours of public marketing and prohibiting office-exclusive listings is anticompetitive, the two parties have traded barbs via legal filings. 

In NWMLS’s reply to Compass’s response to its motion to dismiss, the MLS reiterated its claims that the brokerage has failed to allege any harm to competition or antitrust injury. 

“For all its bluster and obfuscation, Compass’ Complaint is simple: Compass claims the Sherman Act requires that NWMLS give it license to display all other member brokers’ listings on its website while Compass hoards its own Private Exclusive listings from other members,” the reply, filed on Monday, states. “In other words, Compass wants what is good for the goose but denies the same benefit to the gander.”

Equal sharing

According to NWMLS, its rules “do nothing more than make a broker benefiting from the listings of others share its own listings so that others may receive a commensurate benefit.” The MLS says that this approach ensures that all brokers within the organization are treated equally and promotes competition among those brokers. In contrast, Compass has argued that brokers’ inability to have private listings within NWMLS territory quashes brokers, agents and companies trying innovative business models, like its three-phased marketing plan. 

In its reply to NWMLS’s motion to dismiss the suit, Compass cited the PLS.com’s recently revived lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors (NAR). However, NWMLS argues that the case does not apply to this lawsuit. NWMLS argues that the PLS.com’s suit involves an alleged group boycott “in which NAR-affiliated MLSs owned by local Realtor Associations purportedly agreed to stifle competition from a rival startup.” 

Prior to its revival, the PLS.com’s suit was dismissed by the court, however the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the suit to continue.

“In so holding, it reiterated the orthodox antitrust law that while the rule of reason is the default standard for all agreements, in limited situations group boycotts may be per se unlawful,” the filing states. “Nothing in the Complaint brings Compass’ claims within those narrow circumstances.”

Fails to ‘allege a cognizable antitrust market and injury’

Additionally, NWMLS argues that Compass has thus far failed to allege a cognizable antitrust market and injury, failed to allege harm to competition and unlawful exclusionary conduct, and that it has failed to allege that as a service provider NWMLS owes a duty to deal with Compass. 

“Compass’ Complaint never alleges that NWMLS suspended, terminated, or even paused Compass’ membership in NWMLS, and Compass admits it retained full access to NWMLS’ listings database at all times,” the filing states. “It is Compass that restricted rival brokerages’ ability to compete by hiding Private Exclusives — behavior Compass voluntarily agreed it would not do. NWMLS has not restricted Compass’ ability to compete with rivals and the antitrust laws do not impose a duty on NWMLS to deal with Compass differently than any other brokerage.”

NWMLS also notes that while NAR rules allow for office exclusives, a fact Compass has highlighted in its filings, NWMLS is not affiliated with NAR and the trade group “is neither a governmental body nor a beacon of antitrust guidance, given is neither a governmental body nor a beacon of antitrust guidance, given the recent antitrust judgment against its mandatory commission rules.”

NWMLS concluded by reiterating its wish that the court dismiss Compass’s complaint with prejudice. If the suit is not dismissed it will progress into discovery. A trial date is set for June 8, 2026.