2025’s Biggest Stories in Real Estate: Part Two

Editor’s note: this story is part two of a two-part series—read part one here.

2025 was another whirlwind year for real estate, with industry professionals facing ups, downs and everything in between. The industry saw a lot of major developments, and it can be hard to keep track of everything—from continued debates over Clear Cooperation and private listings, to many changes across the plethora of lawsuits affecting the industry.

Here’s a review of some of the major real estate events in the MLS and legal spheres throughout 2025:

The MLS landscape

• The Clear Cooperation Policy debate

The debate over Clear Cooperation Policy continued into 2025, as many industry heads spoke out either for or against the policy. The National Association of Realtors® (NAR) finally sat down to review the policy, and eventually announced it would not be altering Clear Cooperation but instead would add an “exempt” designation. The organization added a new category called “Multiple Listing Options for Sellers,” and said it will allow MLSs to introduce “delayed marketing exempt listings” that are not circulated through IDX for a period of time “most suitable for their local marketplace.” NAR also released an extensive FAQ to explain the new option available. Despite the update, however, some industry names such as Howard Hanna and Compass said they would not abide by Clear Cooperation anymore.

• Other MLS policy

2025 also saw some conversation over NAR’s optional “no-commingling rule,” which was found in a Zillow study to be widely abandoned by most MLSs. Additionally, Zillow’s announcement of a ChatGPT app reached the MLS sphere after NAR chose to defer the question of whether the app complies with MLS policies regarding use and display of data for MLSs themselves to determine. MLS leaders later weighed in on the app as Zillow itself affirmed its adherence to MLS rules.

• Zillow’s private listing standards

In what would become possibly the biggest story of 2025, Zillow announced its new listing standards that “banned” private listings from the portal. In a later release detailing the listing standards, Zillow said that non-compliant listings—meaning listings selectively shared or publicly marketed listings that aren’t MLS entered within one day—would be banned from the portal. Agents themselves would not be banned, and if an agent has a listing banned, they may still post future compliant listings. The new standards sparked a lot of debate in the industry, both for and against the change. Compass then came out and claimed its agents’ listings were being “unfairly targeted” by the listing standards, with the brokerage later filing a lawsuit against Zillow.

• Zillow and Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED)

Following the announcement of Zillow’s listing standards, MRED’s internal private listing service was thrown into the spotlight. In November, Zillow stated it had been attempting to work with MRED to find a solution since its announcement of the new rules. MRED quickly doubled down on its private listing service when CEO Rebecca Jensen sent an emotional open letter to members defending its private listing network against a “one-size-fits-all model.” 

Zillow then came out with an analysis that alleged major disparities in how homes are marketed through Chicago’s private listing network (MRED’s network), with homes in majority-white neighborhoods over twice as likely to be listed privately compared to those in majority-non-white areas. MRED came back with a statement that it takes fair housing very seriously, with rules and processes in place to scan all private and active listings for violations. It was then reported that the dispute between MRED and Zillow could lead to disruptions in internet data exchange (IDX) feeds come January. MRED said in an email to its subscribers on Saturday, December 13 that Zillow has said there may be disruptions to Zillow listings pulled from MRED starting in January.

The legal landscape

• The Batton commission lawsuit

The largest and oldest commission-focused case filed by homebuyers continued to develop in 2025, starting with Judge LaShonda Hunt siding with defendants by partially denying the plaintiffs’ request to expand the suit. Plaintiffs had filed to add almost 20 new state-level claims and two dozen new class representatives, which Judge Hunt said was burdensome and unnecessary. 

The suit was then delayed again as plaintiffs requested an extension to file their class certification motion, extending the discovery phase in order to gather necessary MLS data. Plaintiffs later filed their class certification motion, naming a class worth tens of billions in potential damages. However, defendants have opposed the class, as roughly 79% of the proposed class are potentially bound by a federal injunction from the Burnett case, pending an appeal.

• Lawsuits facing NAR

NAR kicked off 2025 by asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed against it challenging traditional MLS and Realtor® membership requirements, known as Hardy. Later in the year, plaintiffs in the Hardy case cited NAR’s own actions after the organization announced comprehensive updates to its MLS policies, arguing that the changes are an acknowledgment that these policies ran afoul of the law. 

The plaintiffs told the court that the changes were an admission that those requirements are “a violation of Antitrust law.” NAR denied this, filing a response that characterized its MLS rule changes as technically inadmissible and broadly irrelevant to the case.

The battle between The Phoenix Association of Realtors® and NAR that began in 2024 almost broached the legal realm in 2025, when NAR publicly threatened legal action against the association for its “MLS Choice” program that would allow agents and brokers to access listing services without Realtor® membership, circumventing the “three-way agreement.” The two associations reached an agreement, however, before any lawsuits were filed. Phoenix Realtors® agreed to eliminate its “MLS Choice” membership option, but will continue to offer non-Realtors® access to the Arizona Regional Multiple Listing Service (ARMLS) as it has done since 1996.

NAR also faced several other legal developments, including the refiling of a broker lawsuit over multi-level membership fees and MLS access restrictions, as well as the lawsuit filed by PLS.com over Clear Cooperation Policy. There was also a newly filed lawsuit over membership requirements and MLS access by agents and brokers in Louisiana, and another filed by a broker over the “Three-Way Agreement” and MLS access.

• Compass v. Northwest MLS (NWMLS)

In April, Compass filed a lawsuit against Washington-based NWMLS over the MLS’s version of the Clear Cooperation Policy, claiming that the brokerage-owned trade group has the most restrictive homeowner marketing rules in the country. The lawsuit had been telegraphed previously when Compass reached out to homesellers who were ostensibly harmed by the NWMLS policy. Later, NWMLS filed a motion attempting to halt discovery in the suit while it fought to dismiss the suit altogether. The motion was denied by a judge, allowing Compass to move forward with digging through NWMLS’s internal documents and communications.

• Compass v. Zillow

Following controversy and disagreements over Zillow’s newly introduced listings standards over private listings, Compass filed a lawsuit against the portal in June. The suit alleges Zillow is using its listing standards to protect its market dominance to crush competition and stifle innovation, as well as accuses Redfin and eXp Realty of conspiring with Zillow. 

Compass also filed for a preliminary injunction in order to halt Zillow’s listing standards throughout the duration of the case. Zillow denied any conspiracy and has repeatedly argued against the injunction filing. A hearing over the injunction took place in late November, with Compass claiming Zillow has been monopolistically intimidating agents, while Zillow continued to assert the legality of its listing standards. At press time, the judge had yet to rule on the injunction.

• CoStar v. Zillow

CoStar also filed a lawsuit against Zillow in 2025, but in contrast to other lawsuits facing the portal, this one is over alleged copyright infringement. CoStar claims Zillow utilized at least 47,000 copyrighted images of multifamily properties, and claims it was profiting off of CoStar’s work. Zillow then removed the images named in the lawsuit, which it explained was part of usual procedure in these types of lawsuits. 

Separately, Zillow also removed all Matterport tours (CoStar owned company) from its site, citing a decision from CoStar to restrict its content. 

The parties then met in a hearing in October and sparred over the venue for the suit (Seattle vs. New York City), where Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered them to submit more detailed arguments regarding the proper venue for the lawsuit. In a change in position, CoStar then agreed to Zillow’s request to move the lawsuit to Seattle, saying it wanted to resolve the case swiftly and that the move could possibly help CoStar win.

• Other lawsuits Zillow faces

In addition to suits from Compass and CoStar, the FTC also filed a lawsuit against Zillow this year, as well as Redfin, over an alleged anti-competitive agreement between the two portals. The FTC alleges that Zillow paid $100 million (and other benefits) to Redfin to end its advertising customers’ contracts, stop competing in the multifamily advertising market for up to nine years, and serve as an “exclusive syndicator” of Zillow listings. Five states (Connecticut, Arizona, Washington, Virginia and New York) also filed a suit against Zillow and Redfin with the same allegations, and the two suits later consolidated into one.

The portal also faces a lawsuit over the mortgage end of its business, in which lawyers seeking to represent Zillow mortgage customers allege that referrals to Zillow Home Loans are a “coercive scheme,” violating RESPA and other state and federal laws. Another lawsuit was also filed over “hidden fees” from the portal, alleging that Zillow has been deceiving homebuyers and inflating purchase prices through an alleged scheme involving hidden fees paid by real estate agents.

• Settlements

2025 saw both Howard Hanna and William Raveis settle their commission lawsuits, after they were not made a part of the NAR settlement. Both settlements were made in the Gibson case. NextHome, The Keyes Company and Illustrated Properties, John L. Scott, LoKation, Real Estate One and Baird & Warner also all received approval for their settlements in the Gibson case as well.

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) involvement in the MLS PIN settlement process proved to prolong the process this year, with Judge Patti Saris hearing arguments back in April on the matter. Judge Saris delayed her approval of the proposed settlement, citing concerns over class expansion, and called for a revised agreement. The parties in the case then reached a revised agreement in May when they jointly submitted their fourth amended settlement agreement, however the DOJ’s position on the agreement was unclear at the time. The DOJ did agree with the settlement in the end and withdrew its objections, and the agreement was approved by Judge Saris in June.

The DOJ gave a bigger glimpse into its concerns and priorities this year as it intervened in a commission lawsuit late in December, reiterating that federal antitrust enforcers are still scrutinizing commission practices and “anticompetitive agreements” in the industry. 

Also on the DOJ front, RealPage reached a settlement agreement in the price-fixing antitrust lawsuit filed against it by the department. The lawsuit had alleged that after a two-year investigation the DOJ had found evidence that RealPage was using complicated algorithms to facilitate price fixing between landlords. The agreement stated that RealPage must “cease having its software use competitors’ nonpublic, competitively sensitive information to determine rental prices in runtime operation.”

iBuyer Opendoor settled a lawsuit filed against it by investors accusing the company of misrepresenting its ability to time the market in order to make a profit off of home sales. The company agreed to pay $39 million to the investors involved in the suit, but did not admit wrongdoing or agree to any practice changes.

• Other developments

The legal landscape of the real estate industry saw many other developments throughout 2025. 

Howard Hanna won a partial dismissal in the homebuyer lawsuit against it, with the judge dismissing claims that the brokerage conspired with other brokerages to fix commission. The judge also dismissed more than a dozen state-level claims based on consumer protection or unjust enrichment statutes.

CRMLS’s licensing vendor REcore Solutions LLC also filed a lawsuit against Homes.com and its parent company CoStar for a breach of contract relating to failed payment. REcore stated that after a year of negotiations it was faced with “no choice” but to file the suit. The lawsuit was then dropped by REcore several days later after it and Homes.com reached an agreement and reached a “successful resolution.”

New lawsuits were also filed, including copycat Burnett homebuyer Burnett lawsuit against The Real Brokerage and Realty ONE Group (and others). Rocket Mortgage, United Wholesale Mortgage and 24 other lenders were also named in a lawsuit alleging they engaged in a price-fixing scheme with mortgage software provider Optimal Blue. 

loanDepot was also accused in a new lawsuit of steering and systematically violating federal loan officer compensation rules to boost profits ahead of going public. Additionally, a judge allowed a lawsuit against Mr. Cooper over the mortgage lender’s 2023 cyber attack to move forward in court. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract and negligence, however claims of unjust enrichment and invasion of privacy were dismissed by a judge.