Reffkin takes the stand, MRED CEO says Zillow threatened litigation over listing policy dispute

The second and final day of the hearing regarding Zillow’s preliminary injunction motion in its ongoing antitrust lawsuit against Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) and Compass International Holdings featured testimony from two key witnesses for the defense, Compass CEO Robert Reffkin and MRED CEO Rebecca Jensen. 

During their times on the witness stand on Thursday, Reffkin and Jensen both testified that executives at Zillow threatened them regarding their respective firms’ resistance to Zillow’s listing access standards policy, which bans listings from Zillow that are not available for display on IDX or VOW feed powered websites within one business day of the property being publicly marketed. 

The lawsuit focused on whether MRED can suspend its IDX and VOW listing data feeds to Zillow if the listing portal filters or suppresses certain listings and whether Compass unlawfully pushed MRED to do so. 

Let’s play telephone

In her testimony, Jensen detailed calls with Zillow executives, including Zillow’s chief industry development officer Errol Samuelson and the firm’s vice president of enterprise sales and industry at Showingtime+ Michael Lane. According to Jensen, both calls occurred in October 2025.

In the call with Lane, he told Jensen that he regretted using MRED’s private listing network, which has existed since 2016, to sell his Chicagoland area home. Lane allegedly argued that the network raised fair housing concerns. Jensen said she defended the network by citing research and examples of sellers facing sensitive personal circumstances, arguing it exists to give sellers flexibility during difficult times, while acknowledging they ultimately disagreed over whether the network should continue.

In a separate call with Samuelson, Jensen said the Zillow executive asked if she would consider having MRED’s private listings delayed on Zillow, which she declined citing the 2008 settlement between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Association of Realtors (NAR), that prevented MLSs from selectively hiding listings from consumer-facing web portals. The terms of this settlement expired in November 2018. 

According to Jensen, when she refused to comply with Zillow’s request, Samuelson told her that she was leaving “no choice for Zillow than to litigate.” Jensen told the court that Samuelson told her she should expect her “phone to be dumped and all of [her] text messages to get out and have millions of dollars spent on litigation, and that [she was] going to have a public spectacle.” 

Learning from the past

On the stand, Jensen explained her strong desire to not acquiesce to Zillow’s request came from her experience in the real estate industry dealing with the DOJ lawsuit that resulted in the 2008 settlement, and if faced with potentially contending with a lawsuit from the DOJ or Zillow, she would rather deal with Zillow. Jensen also testified that the “objective criteria” defined in MRED’s IDX display rule, which is the policy at the center of this lawsuit, are a result of the 2008 settlement.

Over the course of the hearing, MRED’s witnesses argued that the MLS simply clarified these objective criteria in its October update and did not change them at the behest of Compass, as Zillow has claimed. Additionally, Jensen told the court that MRED has always been focused on growing its footprint and expanding nationally since she started at the MLS in 2015, claiming that this was not a new desire brought about by an alleged conspiracy with Compass. 

In an emailed statement, an MRED spokesperson told HousingWire that the lawsuit is “just a breach of contract case, not an antitrust conspiracy.” 

“MRED is enforcing a neutral rule designed to maintain data integrity between brokerages and preserve the viability of MLSs as valuable services in the real estate industry,” the spokesperson added. “Zillow’s purported harm is entirely self-inflicted and can be remedied immediately by simply complying with the same clear and longstanding license agreement terms that Zillow has complied with for years.”

Robert Reffkin takes the stand

During Reffkin’s time on the witness stand he faced screenshots of his own texts and emails presented to him by Zillow’s counsel during his cross examination. Earlier in his testimony, Reffkin had said that he rarely communicated with Jensen and could not recall sharing litigation documents with her. However, the evidence Zillow presented to the court showed a text exchange from November 2025 in which Reffkin sent a Zillow document from an earlier court filing marked “highly confidential” and “outside counsel’s eyes only,” followed by an exchange in which Jensen asked whether she could forward the documents to the Illinois attorney general and reporters. 

Through this communication, as well as other examples of conversations between Compass and executives at other MLSs, including Bright MLS,  Zillow attempted to show the court how MRED and Compass allegedly conspired to harm the listing portal. 

“A conspiracy between Compass and MRED to undermine Zillow’s pro-consumer listing standards came into clear view over two days of testimony in federal court in Chicago. Key witness testimony from Compass and MRED executives was repeatedly contradicted by texts, emails, internal documents and previous statements introduced in court,” a Zillow spokesperson told HousingWire in an emailed statement.

“The conduct at the center of this case is not limited to Chicago, but a test of whether this playbook can become a national template for hiding homes that can be replicated in market after market. If so, that could spell the end of the open, transparent housing system that benefits buyers, sellers and agents nationwide. We are pleased the truth is out.” 

Compass did not immediately return HousingWire’s request for comment on the conclusion of the hearing. 

What comes next

Post-hearing briefs from both sides are due July 9, with responses due July 13. In order to be granted a preliminary injunction, Zillow needs to have proven to the court that it would be irreparably harmed without it and that it is likely to prevail if that lawsuit goes to trial.

If the motion is denied, that would mean that Zillow was unable to meet this burden, indicating that there is a chance the defendants prevail in a trial, if Zillow does not provide stronger arguments and evidence. 

A ruling on the motion could take weeks if not months.