Hidden Zillow listings created fake supply shock, raising NYC rents, lawsuit says
Two New York City renters have filed a class action lawsuit alleging that brokerage giant Compass deliberately hid rental listings from Zillow and its subsidiary StreetEasy, creating an artificial supply shortage that has driven up rents across the city. The plaintiffs, Peter Castaneda and Haley Gelfand, claim Compass has built a monopoly through years of acquiring rival brokerages and is now exploiting that dominance to withhold listings from free platforms, forcing renters towards brokers and higher fees.
The suit alleges Compass controls over 80 percent of Manhattan's rental listings and follows a "playbook" of hiding units from public view to boost agent revenue and its own stock price. Zillow responded to the mass delistings by barring such private listings from ever appearing on its platforms, prompting Compass to file its own antitrust suit against Zillow, which it later withdrew after a judge deemed it unlikely to succeed. The dispute has also drawn scrutiny from regulators, including a probe backed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, while Compass declined to comment and Zillow said it supports efforts to hold brokers accountable.
- Renters sue Compass for hiding NYC listings, allegedly inflating rents
- Compass accused of controlling over 80% of Manhattan rental listings
- Warren-backed antitrust probes and prior Compass-Zillow legal clash ongoing
New here? Start with this
Zillow is a property website where people can search for homes to rent or buy. StreetEasy, which Zillow owns, focuses on New York City. Rental listings are adverts for homes available to let, and renters often use these sites to compare options.
Compass is a large estate agency that represents landlords and renters. In New York, some agencies have promoted “private” listings that are shared with selected clients before being advertised publicly. Disagreements over when a listing should be made public have led to a wider dispute between Compass and Zillow.
The case raises questions about competition in a city where finding a home can be difficult and costly. It also concerns how much control property agencies and online platforms have over the information renters can see.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Compass's dominance over 80 per cent of Manhattan's rental listings, combined with deliberate removal of those listings from free public platforms like Zillow, creates artificial information scarcity that elevates rents and directs renters toward higher-fee broker channels. The combination of market dominance achieved through acquisitions plus intentional restriction of publicly available supply information exemplifies the anticompetitive conduct that antitrust law is designed to address.
The case against
Brokers have always retained the right to manage their own listings and choose their distribution channels—this is standard business practice rather than anticompetitive conduct. Compass's control of its own ecosystem allows it to coordinate service more effectively for clients, and renters retain alternatives including other brokerages, direct landlord contact, and competing platforms. Market forces and consumer choice, rather than regulatory intervention, should determine whether such practices prove sustainable.