Compass antitrust suit names new lead plaintiff over StreetEasy

A rental lawsuit that wouldn't stay dismissed

A private antitrust case accusing Compass of using its acquisitions to dominate New York's rental market was dropped and refiled within days, this time with a new lead plaintiff. The refiled complaint is also somewhat sharper than the original.

The first complaint was filed on August 19. On August 22, plaintiffs Peter Castaneda and Haley Gelfand dismissed their claims against the brokerage with prejudice, which bars them from suing Compass again over the same allegations.14 That same day, a new plaintiff, Charles Lieberman, filed a slightly revised version of the suit.14 HousingWire described the new filing as a proposed amended complaint naming Lieberman as lead plaintiff and said the earlier plaintiffs had voluntarily dropped out.11

The core theory has not changed. The complaint says Compass, operating as Compass International Holdings since its merger with Anywhere, took rental listings off the Zillow-owned portal StreetEasy, which reduced choice for renters and pushed up both rents and broker fees.11 According to the complaint, Compass told agents before the fall market to pull properties from StreetEasy and instead use the "participant only" setting in the Real Estate Board of New York's Residential Listing Service. That setting keeps a listing off public-facing websites.12

The case is small next to the merger that created today's Compass. Still, it shows how the antitrust questions around that $1.6 billion deal have moved from senators' letters into courtrooms, where renters, investors and rival listing systems are now pressing them.

What the new complaint changes

Lieberman's account is the human example in the case. He says he found a Manhattan apartment on StreetEasy in August 2025 that listed at $4,000 a month, and that a broker fee raised his effective cost to $4,620.11 When he looked again in August 2026, he says so few listings were publicly available that he renewed his lease at $4,850. The complaint calls that a supracompetitive price.1113

Real Estate News found that the refiled complaint is not just the old one with a new name. The original made three claims: monopolization under the Sherman Act, a violation of New York's Donnelly Act, and unjust enrichment.14 Lieberman adds a fourth claim, monopoly leveraging. The argument is that Compass used its large share of rental listings to cut off StreetEasy's supply and steer renters toward Compass's own websites.14

The class period also starts earlier. It now begins January 1, 2026, instead of August 1. Real Estate News pointed out that the new date falls just before Compass closed the Anywhere acquisition.14 Under that timeline, any harm the plaintiffs claim is tied to the merger itself, not only to this summer's marketing push. The plaintiff is seeking treble damages that would cover alleged overpayments and the profits Compass made from the conduct.14

Coverage differs on the size of the market in the case. Real Estate News reported that Lieberman narrowed it from the whole New York City metro area to Manhattan alone, probably to match the 80% Manhattan market-share figure the suit relies on.14 HousingWire described the proposed renter class as covering the NYC metro area and noted a separate class for renters who paid broker fees, directly or indirectly, to Compass or its affiliates.11 Real Estate News gave the most detailed side-by-side comparison of the two complaints, so its reading of a Manhattan-only market looks more reliable. A Manhattan market also fits the litigation strategy better, since the plaintiff's strongest number is a Manhattan number.

Compass's defense: inventory is hidden from the public, not from agents

Compass says this was ordinary marketing. A spokesperson called it a common tactic among top agents that still reaches nearly every buyer or renter while taking listings off the open web in August, which the company called New York's slowest month.11 The company says the listings stayed visible to agents at every REBNY member brokerage and to their clients, and it argues that portals are trying to control how sellers market homes to protect their own business models.11 Compass declined to comment on the amended claims.13

So the legal question is whether a listing that agents can see but the public cannot counts as available in a competitive market. The plaintiffs say renters searching on their own lost access. Compass says the brokerage network still delivered full exposure. That gap is the main issue the court will have to decide.

The merger behind the case

The dispute traces back to September 22, 2025, when Compass announced an all-stock deal to buy Anywhere. The combined company was expected to have about 340,000 agents in roughly 120 countries and territories.3 Different outlets used different figures for the deal's size. Several described it as a $1.6 billion transaction38, while HousingWire also cited an enterprise value of about $10 billion once Anywhere's debt was included.4 Both numbers are accurate; they measure different things.

Warnings came early. In December 2025, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden asked the Justice Department and the FTC to look closely at the deal and to consider blocking it, arguing that it could raise broker fees and limit access to listings.4 An analysis of RealTrends Verified data published by The Capitol Forum found that the merger could produce concentration well above presumptively illegal levels in at least a dozen states, including shares above 80% in Manhattan and Newport Beach, California.1 Compass has consistently said the deal is not anticompetitive.4 Nationally, the combined company's transaction volume is below 20%.5

The federal review ended quickly. The Hart-Scott-Rodino waiting period expired with no challenge from the DOJ or FTC5, and the deal closed on January 9, 2026, months ahead of schedule.8 After that, The Wall Street Journal reported that antitrust chief Gail Slater had wanted a longer review but was overruled by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche after Compass's lawyer Mike Davis, a Trump ally, appealed to Blanche's office.6 Eighteen members of Congress then wrote to the Attorney General, saying the deal had been approved under extraordinarily questionable circumstances.6

Litigation is now doing the work a merger review didn't

In my reading, these cases fit together. With federal regulators out of the picture, other parties are challenging the merger's effects through other channels.

New York's Attorney General confirmed in June 2026 that it was investigating the merger on antitrust grounds.2 Zillow is suing Compass and Midwest Real Estate Data, and the House Judiciary Committee has questioned the two companies about their partnership.11 In early October, a securities class action, Magloire v. Compass, was filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of former Anywhere shareholders. It alleges that the merger documents misrepresented Compass's "reasonable best efforts" to obtain regulatory approval because the company had quietly hired Davis to get around the normal review.15 One firm promoting the case says Compass stock was at $9.19 when the suit was filed, more than 28% below the roughly $12.84 price on the exchange date.16 The firms give slightly different deadlines for lead-plaintiff motions: one says December 8, others say December 7.1517

Compass is also going on offense. California Regional MLS has asked a federal court in New York to declare its cooperation rules lawful and to block Compass from bringing antitrust claims. It filed after Compass sent a demand letter, and Compass CEO Robert Reffkin has said publicly that the company is preparing its own lawsuit.20 The issue in that fight looks a lot like the StreetEasy dispute: whether a brokerage can market some inventory selectively while still drawing on shared listing data from everyone else.20

What to watch

The Lieberman complaint is still a set of allegations; no court has found anything.13 The first questions are procedural. Can a refiled case survive after its original plaintiffs dropped out with prejudice? And can a class be certified around a single borough's rental market? A Manhattan-focused complaint with a January 2026 start date shows a deliberate strategy: it treats the Anywhere merger as the source of market power and the StreetEasy delistings as the way that power was used.

If that framing holds up, a renters' case could test the theory that regulators never fully examined, namely that concentration at the metro level, not national share, is what matters in residential real estate. Inman commentary had already pointed to that blind spot, arguing that conventional market-share measures understate the power of a brokerage that sits on one or both sides of a large share of deals.9 The Lieberman suit is a chance to test that argument in court.