Above: Alex Vidal. Photo by AJ Canaria.
Shortly after REMAX President Alex Vidal joined the brokerage after three years at ERA Real Estate, Compass—which now owns ERA—filed a lawsuit against Vidal for allegedly violating a non-compete agreement.
Filed in Texas on Sept. 19, the case was recently moved to the Delaware Court of Chancery.
The lawsuit alleges that Vidal’s shift from ERA president to REMAX president back in September violated a “restrictive covenant agreement” (aka a contractual agreement), which was inclusive of a non-compete. As REMAX is defined by Compass as a competing business—due to having a “virtually identical franchise model”—the brokerage argued that Vidal joining REMAX is a violation of the non-compete.
Compass is asking for a court order preventing Vidal from serving as REMAX’s president.
Compass declined to comment on the suit.
In a court filing in Texas, Vidal alleged that due to “fundamental differences” in the business models of Compass and REMAX, the non-compete is rendered “overly broad and unenforceable.”
Specifically, the filing noted that ERA—now a Compass-owned brand post Anywhere merger—operates on a royalty-based model, while REMAX operates on a fee-based model. Also noted is the difference in size between the two brokerages, as REMAX is larger and operates in areas where ERA does not.
REMAX did not immediately respond to a request for comment, or questions regarding Vidal’s current employment status. Vidal did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Delaware court had not yet ruled on Compass’s request at press time.
The injunction at hand
On the table currently is a preliminary injunction request from Compass which seeks to prevent Vidal from serving as REMAX president—and from working with REMAX or any other competing brokerage—due to his access to the brokerage’s “trade secrets,” as defined by relevant laws.
Compass said these trade secrets include knowledge of the brokerage’s HOME platform technology, its “proprietary website traffic strategy,” franchise agreements and renewal schedules, strategic plans and other information.
Vidal’s response to the injunction request argued that he did not “misappropriate” any of the aforementioned trade secrets, and in fact took specific steps to avoid this issue by returning his company laptop to “ensure that no confidential materials of any kind were removed or retained.”
Additionally, the filing noted that in hiring Vidal, REMAX instructed him “not to use or bring any third-party confidential information to his new role.”
Compass also did not list any specific confidential material or trade secret that was misappropriated by Vidal, which Vidal noted in his own filing.
In court filings in Delaware, Compass and ERA argued the non-compete agreements were clear and acknowledged, and that Vidal made no attempt to renegotiate or ask to be released from those agreements before taking the role at REMAX.
The filing also claimed that Vidal knows non-public information about franchise agreements, including terms, renewal periods and “lessons of the Compass-Anywhere integration.”
“That knowledge cannot be returned with a laptop, and it cannot be unlearned,” the filing says. Compass also argued that a one-year non-compete is “reasonable in duration and scope,” and claimed he could have taken a different real estate role—even at REMAX—without violating the agreement.
Vidal received equity and performance awards based on compliance with those agreements, according to Compass and ERA, with around $310,000 in aggregate target value across 2024 and 2025.
“Having kept that consideration, Vidal cannot now walk away from the obligations he exchanged for that compensation,” Compass wrote.
On the other hand, Vidal’s court filings specifically called out that “Compass’ own corporate leadership has publicly repudiated the enforcement of non-compete agreements.”
Included is an article written by CEO Robert Reffkin that repudiated non-compete agreements, and stated that Compass had decided to eliminate the use of them, “believing that open and free competition keeps us all accountable.”
“While non-compete clauses are not always enforced, requiring someone to sign away their professional rights for a lengthy period or requiring them to move in order to make a living, is unnecessarily harmful and disruptive on many levels,” the article read.
