Antitrust Concerns as Compass Seeks to Control the American Dream
By Ken DeLeon
As market concentration grows, off-market strategies and listing control deserve more scrutiny from buyers, sellers, and regulators alike.
Housing is not just another industry. It is deeply tied to the American Dream, household wealth, and to the way families live their lives. So when one company appears to be engaging in conduct that may reduce competition and narrow consumer choice, it is not surprising that regulators begin to pay attention.
Just a few months after Compass completed its $1.6 billion acquisition of Anywhere Real Estate, cementing its position as the largest brokerage in the country, the New York Attorney General has reportedly begun contacting leaders at top brokerages for information as part of a potential antitrust inquiry. With the nation’s largest brokerage making a clear push toward greater consolidation and control, many legal observers in the industry have been wondering when, not if, regulators would begin asking harder questions. What is now happening in New York may prove to be the first meaningful sign of that scrutiny.
Analysis of some of the largest markets in the country has shown just how substantial Compass’ footprint has become. Compass and Anywhere, now under one roof, accounted for most of the transaction volume in several major cities, including San Francisco and several boroughs in New York City. Historically, once market concentration reaches these kinds of levels, antitrust concerns tend to follow. Investors appeared to take the news of the inquiry seriously as well, with Compass stock falling 12 percent.
But the larger issue is not simply size. It is what that size may enable.
Compass has not only expanded through acquisition. It has also aligned itself with four large regional MLSs in an effort to extend traditionally regional listing platforms beyond their historic boundaries. In doing so, it is helping create a structure that could give a single brokerage significantly greater influence over listing distribution. At the same time, Compass has revived its legal battles with Zillow to protect those same listings from exclusion once they go live on an MLS. Taken together, these are not isolated developments. They suggest a broader effort to exert greater influence over the channels through which consumers and agents access inventory.
That matters because residential real estate has long depended on a balance between competition and cooperation. Consumers benefit when firms compete aggressively for business, but they also benefit when listing information is broadly available, market access remains open, and buyers and sellers participate in a marketplace that is transparent and competitive. When one company becomes large enough to influence both competitive dynamics and distribution channels at the same time, that balance begins to shift.
I have been outspoken in my belief that off-market listings, particularly as they have been promoted by some of the industry’s largest players, are difficult to square with a genuinely consumer-first approach. In narrow circumstances, a private listing strategy may make sense. Some sellers value privacy over price and are willing to accept that tradeoff. But as a broader business model, the practice raises serious questions.
The most important of those questions is whether sellers are being clearly told what the tradeoff actually is.
When agents present an off-market option, sellers should be told plainly that reduced exposure usually means a lower price. The degree of loss varies by study, but the pattern is consistent. One study found that the loss from selling off market could be as high as 19.7 percent compared with selling on the open market. Whether the discount is modest or severe in a given case, the underlying principle is simple: fewer buyers generally means less competition, and less competition often means a lower result for the seller.
That is why some states have begun requiring clearer disclosure. Connecticut, for example, now requires sellers who choose a private or off-market sale to sign a consent form acknowledging the risks of reduced exposure, including the possibility that fewer buyers may see the property and that the seller may receive a lower price. California has disclosure forms as well, though in my view they should do more to make the likely tradeoff unmistakably clear.
Understandably, some sellers still prefer privacy over price. That is their right. But most sellers are not looking to leave meaningful money on the table, and they deserve to understand the consequences before being guided into a strategy that narrows the field of buyers from the outset. Buyers pursuing off-market opportunities often understand exactly what reduced exposure means. They know those homes are less likely to benefit from competitive pressure, and they price their offers accordingly.
That is where the current industry push deserves closer attention.
If a private listing strategy were truly about selling homes off market, that would be one thing. But if only a small percentage of properties that begin in private channels actually sell there, then the more important question is why so much effort is being devoted to steering sellers into those channels in the first place. The concern is not simply whether some homes sell privately. It is whether sellers are being drawn into a system that benefits the intermediary more than the client.
We should not confuse innovation with control. I live and raise my family in Silicon Valley precisely because I believe in innovation. Better tools, broader reach, stronger marketing, and smarter ways of serving clients are all good things. But a healthier market is not one in which information is increasingly restricted, leveraged, or routed through narrower channels for the benefit of the intermediary. A healthier market is one in which consumers still have access to broad exposure, clear guidance, and genuine competition working on their behalf.
For those sellers who genuinely prioritize privacy over price and still wish to sell off market, the conversation should be honest from the beginning. At DeLeon Realty, we would make that tradeoff explicit and advise against that path unless privacy is truly the client’s priority. Because we have one of the strongest buyer platforms in the market, with more than $500 million in buyer-side sales last year, an off-market seller working with us may still receive meaningful exposure relative to most alternatives. But because off-market listings cannot be broadly marketed in the way on-market listings can, I do not believe sellers should be charged as though they are receiving a full traditional marketing campaign. Our approach reflects that reality.
The inquiry in New York may or may not lead to meaningful regulatory action. But it has already served an important purpose by drawing attention to the speed and scale of the shift now underway. The issue is not simply the size of one company. It is what that size enables. When market concentration, listing control, platform disputes, and industry partnerships all begin moving in the same direction, the conversation becomes larger than one company’s growth story. It becomes a question of market structure, consumer access, and whether the industry is becoming more open or less so.
What This Means for Silicon Valley Sellers
Ask sharper questions before agreeing to any limited exposure strategy. How broadly will your home be seen? What is the tradeoff between privacy and price? Who benefits from the recommended approach? In a high-value market, those answers matter.
For Silicon Valley buyers and sellers, the practical lesson is straightforward: ask better questions. How broadly will a home be exposed to the market? What are the tradeoffs of an off-market strategy? Who benefits from the approach being recommended? Is the goal to maximize value and create real competition, or to keep more of the transaction within a closed system? Those distinctions matter.
At DeLeon Realty, I have always believed that strong representation begins with alignment. The strategy should serve the client, not the system. That means full market exposure when it benefits the seller, complimentary legal services that help clients navigate important decisions with greater clarity, and our longstanding policy of never having the same agent represent both sides of the transaction. We are constantly evolving to better serve our clients, but that principle has not changed: the client’s interests come first.
That is the DeLeon Difference.
Ken DeLeon (DRE #01342140) | ken@deleonrealty.com | 650.543.8501
DeLeon Realty, Inc. | DRE #01903224 | Equal Housing Opportunity
