Compass Rentals lawsuit dismissed refiled by new plaintiff
The Compass lawsuit was dismissed after three days, then refiled by another plaintiff, underscoring the brokerage’s 80% dominance in Manhattan rentals.
The Compass rentals lawsuit that appeared on August 19 was voluntarily dismissed three days later, only to be refiled the same week with a different plaintiff and a revised set of claims.
Original filing and quick dismissal
On August 19, Peter Castaneda and Haley Gelfand sued the brokerage, alleging it violated both state and federal antitrust rules by dominating Manhattan’s rental market. Their complaint cited a study that put the firm’s share of Manhattan listings at 80% and criticized an internal “Fall Marketing Playbook” that urged agents to pull listings from the Zillow‑owned StreetEasy portal. The plaintiffs argued that this practice inflated rents and deprived renters of a competitive market.
Three days later, the two original plaintiffs dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning they cannot bring the same claims again.
The filing listed three causes of action: monopolization under the Sherman Act, a violation of New York’s Donnelly Act, and unjust enrichment for the firm’s alleged windfall profits.
Related: FTC, Zillow, Redfin head to trial
Amended complaint filed by new plaintiff
On August 22, Charles Lieberman submitted a nearly identical complaint, but with notable adjustments. He limited the geographic focus to listings in Manhattan rather than the broader metropolitan area, aligning the claim with the 80% market‑share figure. The new filing also shifted the class‑action start date from August 1 to January 1, 2026, positioning the case just before the firm completed its Anywhere acquisition.
Lieberman added a fourth claim—monopoly leveraging—also grounded in the Sherman Act. This allegation says the company used its control of rental listings to choke the supply on StreetEasy, steering renters toward its own platforms and extracting higher broker fees.
In the revised pleading, the plaintiff describes paying a “supracompetitive” rent and claims that without the severe reduction of public listings on StreetEasy, the price gap would not exist. He seeks treble damages to cover alleged overpayments and the firm’s profits from the conduct.
The filing’s numbers are stark: 80% market share in Manhattan, a class start date of January 1, 2026, and a request for damages multiplied by three. The document lists no other jurisdictions.
Related: UAE Introduces Fast Track Visa Service
Comparing this case to earlier antitrust actions in the housing sector shows a pattern: plaintiffs often focus on a single city’s data to illustrate broader market distortions, then broaden the relief sought to encompass statewide or even national impacts. While the current suit narrows its geographic scope, the strategy of leveraging a high‑profile market‑share statistic remains consistent with past filings.
The amended suit’s emphasis on the StreetEasy pull‑back reflects a tactical shift. By targeting the platform’s reduced inventory, the plaintiff argues the firm weaponized its dominance to force renters onto its own sites, a move that could be seen as an attempt to lock in higher broker fees.
Legal analysts note that the addition of the monopoly‑leveraging claim may give the case a better chance of surviving a motion to dismiss, as it ties the alleged conduct directly to a specific antitrust provision.
As of now, the complaint awaits court review. If certified as a class action, it could affect every Manhattan renter who signed a non‑rent‑stabilized lease between January 1, 2026, and the filing date, potentially exposing the firm to significant financial liability.
