Welcome to real estate insights born from many years “in the trenches.” This site cuts through the theory to deliver down-to-earth, field-tested advice for homeowners, buyers, and industry pros—covering everything from buying and selling to investing and development. It’s all practical knowledge for making smarter property decisions.
Latest news on real estate laws, regulations, and policy changes impacting the market.
REX’s Supreme Court Petition Denied: What It Means (and Doesn’t) for Real Estate
The Supreme Court has officially denied Real Estate Exchange, Inc. (REX)’s petition for a writ of certiorari, ending its high-profile antitrust case against Zillow and the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR). While headlines might make it sound like a landmark ruling, the reality is simpler: the Court just opted not to take the case, not to weigh in on whether NAR’s policies are legal or not.
In what the FTC is calling a “blatantly anti-competitive agreement,” Zillow paid Redfin $100 million to get out of the rental advertising business and hand over its multifamily customers. That’s not an exaggeration…according to the FTC’s 32-page federal complaint filed September 30, the agreement requires Redfin to terminate all contracts for properties with 25 or more units, share sensitive customer info, lay off its entire rentals team, and direct its clients (and staff) over to Zillow.
In return, Redfin gets to stay in the rental search game… as a syndicator for Zillow listings only. The agreement spans up to nine years and effectively kills off Redfin as a competitor in the ILS (Internet Listing Service) space for large rental properties.
Zillow is being sued in a proposed nationwide class-action lawsuit that alleges it misleads consumers on its site while quietly pocketing up to 40% of the buyer agent’s commission, and doing it without disclosure to either the buyer or the seller.
The lawsuit, filed by Oregon homebuyer Alucard Taylor on September 19, 2025, targets Zillow’s “Flex” agent referral program and accuses the company of violating both the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).
Here’s an update on the One Big Beautiful Bill, fresh from its tight Senate win and heading to the House.
Bottom line up front: The Senate kept almost all the real-estate perks from the original plan and added a few new benefits. If the House signs off, homeowners, landlords, sellers, investors and real estate agents will see more money in their pockets, clearer tax rules, and stronger support for affordable housing.
The Compass-Zillow Lawsuit Isn’t Just Legal Drama—It’s a Battle Over Real Estate’s Innovation DNA
Glenn Sanford, CEO of eXp, just weighed in on the Compass-Zillow lawsuit—and whether you agree with him or not, his post hits a critical nerve about where this industry could be headed.
The Compass antitrust lawsuit against Zillow is heating up, and Greg Hague’s latest analysis puts an even sharper point on what’s at stake. I covered the legal filing last week, but Hague’s breakdown highlights just how transformative this case could be for the real estate industry. He’s right: this isn’t just about listing policies or portal preferences. It’s a fight over who controls the digital front door to homebuying—and whether innovation in marketing strategies gets crushed under the weight of a near-monopoly.
What Zillow calls a policy change for transparency, Hague frames as textbook exclusionary conduct. And it’s hard to argue with that lens when you consider the timing: Compass gains traction with its Private Exclusives and extended pre-MLS marketing, NAR adjusts the Clear Cooperation Policy to allow more flexibility, and suddenly Zillow drops a 24-hour rule that effectively bans listings that don’t play by its rules. It’s not about fairness to buyers; it’s about eliminating options that threaten Zillow’s lead-gen machine. The permanent nature of the ban, coupled with Zillow’s platform dominance, underscores the concern.
Compass filed a federal antitrust lawsuit yesterday accusing Zillow of trying to crush competition in the home search space. The core of the lawsuit challenges what Compass calls the “Zillow Ban,” a new policy set to begin enforcement June 30th, which blocks any listing from appearing on Zillow if it was marketed elsewhere—even on a brokerage’s private platform—for more than one day.
Compass claims this rule unfairly targets its 3-Phased Marketing Strategy, which allows sellers to start privately marketing a listing before it hits the MLS and public portals. According to the complaint, 94% of listings that used the strategy in 2024 ultimately went to the MLS and sites like Zillow, but the new policy would strip those sellers of that exposure unless they bypass pre-marketing altogether—or fire their agent and relist with someone else. The suit alleges this is a classic monopolistic move to limit seller choice, eliminate competing innovation, and control inventory. Compass also accuses Zillow of conspiring with Redfin and eXp to enforce the policy across multiple platforms, describing it as a coordinated boycott.
In recent weeks, the U.S. Department of Justice has moved to terminate or seek early termination of several redlining-related consent orders with banks, citing substantial compliance with the terms of the original settlements. These actions mark a shift in approach and have sparked conversation across the financial and regulatory landscape.
Key updates include:
While the industry debates Clear Cooperation, buyer comp rules, and MLS policy shifts, state real estate regulators — the ones with enforcement power — are quietly stepping in.
In a recent post on her blog, former California DRE investigator and real estate compliance consultant Summer Goralik sounded the alarm: Private listings are drawing increased scrutiny, and state agencies are preparing to act.
Another day, another lawsuit taking aim at the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) and its long-standing policies. But this one doesn’t center on buyer broker compensation like the Sitzer-Burnett or Moehrl cases. Instead, it targets a different piece of NAR’s structure—the so-called “three-way agreement” and its Variable Dues Formula (VDF), which, according to a new federal complaint, forces brokers to either pay dues for agents who don’t want to be members or disassociate with them altogether.
Filed June 9 in the Central District of California by broker John Diaz, the complaint alleges that NAR, the California Association of REALTORS® (CAR), and two local associations (Lodi and Central Valley) have violated federal antitrust law through a coordinated effort that restricts competition and punishes brokerages that don’t fall in line.