"During his testimony, Wu, who served as an expert witness for Zillow, said he was viewing the suit as a refusal to deal case, noting that Zillow doesn't monetize listings because Zillow does not sell the listing. He also argued that there are pro-competitive justifications for the policy, including that it protects Zillow's access to listings which is a critical input for Zillow, that they help Zillow protect its value proposition,"
"and that they prevent the fragmentation of the listings, which he said is bad for consumers. Zillow's counsel Eric Tuttle, an attorney from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, delivered Zillow's closing arguments. He argued that Zillow's policy is pro-competitive and designed to maintain a transparent and comprehensive online home search market. He also argued that Compass's lawsuit is an attempt to force Zillow to subsidize its three-phase marketing strategy, which Tuttle argues would lead to fragmentation and consumer harm."
Zillow frames the matter as a refusal-to-deal case and notes that it does not monetize listings because it does not sell them. The policy is presented as protecting Zillow's access to listings, safeguarding its value proposition, and preventing fragmentation of listings that could harm consumers. The policy is characterized as pro-competitive and intended to maintain a transparent, comprehensive online home-search market and to deter other brokerages from creating private listing networks. Zillow contends sellers rationally value broad exposure and argues that Compass has not suffered irreparable financial harm.
Read at www.housingwire.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]