The antitrust lawsuit claims that the brokerage’s outsized market share in the city and its push to remove listings from portals has caused rents to surge.
Two Manhattan renters are suing Compass, alleging that the brokerage’s expansion and its strategy to pull listings from StreetEasy violate federal and state antitrust laws.
The complaint, filed by Peter Castaneda and Haley Gelfand in the Southern District of New York on Aug. 19, claims that Compass’ domination of the New York City rentals market has led to inflated rent prices and caused them to be “deprived of a normal functioning market.” The plaintiffs specifically point to the rental prices of the 1-bedroom apartments they secured this month — which they say far exceed the median rent for an equivalent unit reported in July — as an example of such inflation.
The plaintiffs seek undisclosed damages and class status to include all NYC renters who entered into a rental agreement from Aug. 1, 2026, “until the Defendant’s unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects cease to persist.”
A Manhattan monopoly? This rapid rise in rental prices, the plaintiffs allege, is tied to Compass’ “aggressive strategy of mergers and acquisitions,” most notably its acquisition of Anywhere and the company’s franchise brands, which closed in January.
The filing aims to illustrate this claim with a chart based on Crain’s New York Business list of the top 20 residential real estate brokerages in the New York City area.
Combining Compass’ 2024 NYC transaction volume with that of its newly acquired brands Corcoran, Sotheby’s International Realty and Coldwell Banker (which also made Crain’s list), the plaintiffs note that the firms’ total gross sales — roughly $39 billion — add up to “more than double of the amount of Compass’ closest competitor (Douglas Elliman) and more than all of the other competitors listed on the Top 20 combined.”
The plaintiffs also pointed to a December 2025 analysis by The Capitol Forum, which was based on RealTrends transaction data, that indicated Compass held 80% of the market share for rental unit listings in Manhattan. That dominance, the filing stated, gives Compass a level of control that is “outside of the realm of what is acceptable in a competitive market checked by the antitrust laws.”
Compass’ anti-portal playbook: The filing references Compass’ “Fall Marketing Playbook,” citing reporting published by The Real Deal earlier this month, as another example of the brokerage’s allegedly anticompetitive behavior. According to The Real Deal, Compass encouraged agents to pull listings from StreetEasy — an NYC-specific listings portal owned by Zillow — while keeping them on the Real Estate Board of New York’s Residential Listing Service with a “Participant Only” designation so listings wouldn’t be accessible to home search portals.
An Aug. 20 post on appraiser Jonathan Miller’s “Housing Notes” newsletter adds some context to the reporting. In the post, Miller points to Marketproof data showing that 93% of Participant Only listings in Manhattan belong to Compass or its Anywhere-affiliated brands, and that 78% of those listings were previously publicly available. The data indicates Participant Only listings that were subsequently relisted were repriced for 6.4% below their Participant Only ask, Miller noted, suggesting that non-public listings were subject to a markup.
Marketproof is a data research subscription service, and Real Estate News has not independently reviewed the findings shared in Miller’s post.
Holes in the complaint? The plaintiffs may have an uphill battle in their effort to tie Compass’ NYC market share to rising rent prices in the metro. Notably, when Compass sued Zillow in June 2025 over its listing standards, the judge appeared skeptical of the brokerage’s monopoly claims and declined to issue a preliminary injunction against the portal. Compass dropped the case in March.
And while the filing includes data showing a steady rise in NYC rents coinciding with a precipitous drop in inventory over the past year, the connection to Compass’ market share and its use of the Participant Only designation is based largely on commentary from Miller, who is a vocal critic of Compass’ strategy.
Compass has declined to comment on the lawsuit.