"During the final day of testimony at the hearing, both parties addressed the antitrust claims, with Compass's legal counsel claiming that the ongoing communication between leaders at Zillow and Redfin, which announced but never enacted a nearly identical policy, was evidence of collusion, that the policy harms both Compass and industry competition, and that strategy documents presented as evidence illustrate Zillow's monopoly power."
"Under antitrust law, if a policy is found to harm competition, it can be allowed if there is evidence that the policy actually benefits the consumer and that there are no other less anti-competitive ways to achieve the same results. If the defendants are able to show some pro-consumer benefits that outweigh the anti-competitive nature, and of course there are exceptions, but the majority of the cases where this happens, the defendants win, Bradley Weber, the co-chair of Locke Lord's antitrust practice group, said."
Compass filed suit challenging a Zillow policy that bans listings publicly marketed for more than one business day before appearing on Zillow, and sought a preliminary injunction just before the rule’s effective date. Compass alleges communication between Zillow and Redfin shows collusion and alleges the policy harms Compass, industry competition, and seller choice. Zillow contends there is no collusion, asserts no duty to deal with Compass, and argues the policy has pro-competitive benefits. Antitrust law permits harmful policies when demonstrated consumer benefits outweigh anti-competitive effects, and experts differ on whether Zillow proved such benefits.
Read at www.housingwire.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]