The Signal / Policy / October 20, 2026
CoStar v. CREXi, No. 2:20-cv-08819
CoStar v. CREXiSix years in, a photo copyright case and an antitrust case share one docket
CoStar sued CREXi in September 2020, alleging its younger rival copied tens of thousands of listing photos and cropped off the watermark. CREXi answered that CoStar keeps brokers from listing with anyone else. In 2025 a federal judge sent the photo claims toward a jury and an appeals court revived the monopoly claims. Here is how the case got here, what each side has won, and what it could change for brokers, data buyers and appraisers.
The case in four numbers
- Photos CoStar now claims
- 50,000+
- Listing share CREXi alleges
- 90%
- Years on the docket
- 6
- Public trial date
- None
Two cases on one docket
CoStar’s copyright claims are waiting for a jury, and CREXi’s monopoly claims are back in play
The case is CoStar Group, Inc. v. Commercial Real Estate Exchange, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-08819 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. CoStar is the plaintiff on copyright, DMCA and contract claims. CREXi is the counterclaimant on federal and California antitrust claims. Both sets of claims are still pending, and neither side has won a final judgment on them.
Since mid-2025, the district court denied both sides summary judgment on the copyright claims and left damages to a jury. The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of CREXi’s antitrust counterclaims, and the Supreme Court declined to hear CoStar’s appeal of that ruling. In July 2026 the court disqualified the law firm CREXi had hired to try the case.
CoStar’s copyright claims
Awaiting trial
Summary judgment denied to both sides June 25, 2025. A jury will set damages. No public trial date as of October 20, 2026.
CREXi’s antitrust counterclaims
Revived
Reinstated by the Ninth Circuit June 23, 2025. The Supreme Court denied review March 23, 2026. Back in the district court for discovery.
CREXi’s trial counsel
Replaced
Quinn Emanuel disqualified July 13, 2026. CREXi dropped its Ninth Circuit challenge in August.
Sources: Ninth Circuit opinion, No. 23-55662 ↗ Supreme Court docket 25-667 ↗ Daily Journal on the disqualification ↗ CoStar’s case page ↗
Same brokers, same listings
CoStar sells listings, data and auctions to commercial brokers, and CREXi offers an alternative to each
The Ninth Circuit describes CoStar, founded in 1987, as the established industry leader. Its products in this case are LoopNet, an online listing marketplace; LoopLink, software that displays a broker’s LoopNet listings on the broker’s own website; the CoStar database of current and historical property data; and Ten-X, an auction platform. CREXi, founded in 2015, offers alternatives to all four.
CoStar has sued a listing rival before. In December 2019 a federal court in Kansas City entered a $500 million stipulated judgment for CoStar against Xceligent, covering 38,489 photographs along with contract, computer fraud and DMCA claims. Xceligent was already in Chapter 7 liquidation, and its insurers paid CoStar $10.75 million. CREXi’s counterclaims cite what happened next: they allege CoStar raised average prices for new customers by 80% several months after Xceligent left the market.
- LoopNet listing marketplace
- LoopLink broker websites
- CoStar property database
- Ten-X auctions
- Listing marketplace
- Broker tools
- Property data
- Auctions
Sources: Ninth Circuit opinion ↗, part I. Xceligent judgment ↗. The 80% figure is CREXi’s allegation.
Copyright, the DMCA and a cropped logo
CoStar alleges CREXi copied its listing photos and cut its watermark off them
CoStar’s September 2020 complaint counted more than 10,000 of its images on CREXi’s site. It alleged CREXi employees opened CoStar accounts under fake names, or used accounts from former employers that were CoStar clients, and accessed the CoStar database more than 1,000,000 times. CoStar later sought to add claims and now alleges more than 50,000 infringed photographs, saying over half the copying happened after it sued.
Photos CoStar alleges CREXi copied
50,000+
From more than 10,000 in the 2020 complaint to more than 50,000 in the amended claims.
The DMCA claim rests on the watermark. CoStar marks its photos with a small star logo. It alleges CREXi’s offshore contractors in India took screenshots and cropped the logo out before posting the images. Section 1202 of the DMCA bars removing copyright management information, and CREXi has argued the star does not qualify as that information. CoStar argues it does.
The Copyright Act’s statutory damages, applied to a photo count
The ranges come from the statute. They are not a forecast: statutory damages require timely registration, and a jury picks the figure.
$37,500,000statutory range endpoint for that many photographs, before any DMCA award of $2,500 to $25,000 per violation
The spread is wide because the statute leaves the per-work figure to the jury, from $750 to $30,000, or up to $150,000 for willful infringement. In Xceligent, the stipulated judgment worked out to roughly $13,000 per photograph across 38,489 images, though that judgment also covered contract, computer fraud and DMCA claims, and it was agreed to by a liquidating company.
Sources: Bisnow on the 2020 complaint ↗ Bloomberg Law on the 50,000-photo claim ↗ Law360 on the watermark dispute ↗ 17 U.S.C. 504(c) ↗ 17 U.S.C. 1203(c) ↗ 17 U.S.C. 412 ↗
One ruling, two press releases
The court denied both sides summary judgment, then excluded CoStar’s damages expert
On June 25, 2025, Judge Marshall denied CoStar’s and CREXi’s cross-motions for partial summary judgment. A day later she excluded the opinions of CoStar’s damages expert on the hypothetical licensing value of its images. Both companies announced a win. The two readings below come from each side’s own account, and the points each one stresses do not contradict the other’s.
CoStar’s reading
- The court found CoStar owns every photograph at issue.
- It quoted CREXi’s own instruction to screenshot photos so the watermark would be removed.
- It found ample evidence that CREXi and its offshore contractors copied LoopNet listing information.
- DMCA safe harbor does not apply to the user-directed images, and the unclean hands defense failed.
“CREXi engaged in mass infringement and must pay the price.”Gene Boxer, CoStar general counsel, June 26, 2025
CREXi’s reading
- Both summary judgment motions were denied, so the claims go to a jury.
- CoStar lacked evidence that CREXi’s platform promoted certain images without broker involvement.
- The opinions of CoStar’s damages expert on the licensing value of its images were excluded.
- Damages are for a jury, and CREXi’s revived antitrust counterclaims now proceed in the same case.
The exclusion “gutted CoStar’s damages case”Warren Braunig, Keker, Van Nest & Peters, for CREXi, June 2025
AI-generated illustration of a federal courtroom, not the Los Angeles courtroom where this case is pending.
Sources: CoStar release, June 26, 2025 ↗ Keker, Van Nest & Peters, June 27, 2025 ↗. Keker represented CREXi until December 2025.
Dismissed in 2023, revived in 2025
The Ninth Circuit held CREXi plausibly alleged CoStar has monopoly power in listing, information and auction services
CREXi counterclaimed for monopolization and attempted monopolization under section 2 of the Sherman Act, exclusive dealing under section 1 and California’s Cartwright Act, and unfair competition under California law. The district court dismissed those claims with prejudice in 2023, reasoning that CREXi had not shown monopoly power and that CoStar’s broker agreements were not exclusive. In January 2024 the Federal Trade Commission filed a brief supporting neither side that said the dismissal rested on legal errors.
A panel of Judges Lucy Koh and Anthony Johnstone, with District Judge Michael Simon sitting by designation, reversed on June 23, 2025, in an opinion by Judge Johnstone. It held CREXi plausibly alleged monopoly power two ways. Directly, through pricing: the 80% increase after Xceligent, and a customer’s complaint that prices rose 300 to 500% after a merger. Indirectly, through market share and the network effects that keep a new listing site from attracting sellers’ brokers without buyers’ brokers, and buyers’ brokers without sellers’.
National shares CREXi alleges, as summarized by the court. LoopNet allegedly draws over 85% of website visitors among listing sites.
12 of 50 metros at 90% or more, as alleged
Sources: Ninth Circuit amended opinion ↗, part II.B. FTC amicus brief ↗. Every share on this page is an allegation the court accepted as plausible at the pleading stage, not a finding of fact.
CREXi’s word for it is “a moat”
CREXi alleges CoStar’s terms and technology keep brokers from moving their own listings to rivals
CoStar’s agreements say its right to brokers’ data is non-exclusive. CREXi alleges other terms take that back. The LoopNet terms bar using LoopNet content “in connection with any other . . . listing service” and treat information obtained from the service as proprietary to LoopNet, and brokers agree it is a prima facie breach if CoStar finds a third party has access to listings CoStar modified. The opinion says the LoopLink, CoStar and Ten-X terms contain similar provisions. CREXi quoted brokers who declined to work with it, one because it would “conflict with our National CoStar agreement.”
The Ninth Circuit had not recognized a de facto exclusive dealing theory before. Other circuits had, in cases built on rebates and volume targets. This panel held that a contract does not need an express exclusivity clause if specific provisions work that way in practice, and it treated the broker statements as evidence that they do. CoStar’s Supreme Court petition challenged that holding directly. The Court declined to take it up.
- Public visitorscan read the listings
- Search enginescan read the listings
- LoopNetcan read the listings
- CREXi and other rivalsblocked, as alleged
“I’m not sure why you can’t access these [listings] because they are on our own website.”A broker quoted in CREXi’s counterclaims, per the Ninth Circuit
AI-generated illustration. The counterclaims quote a broker with over 300 listings that change daily who keeps them on one platform because tracking several costs time.
Source: Ninth Circuit amended opinion ↗, parts I and II.C. The panel’s holding is that these allegations state a claim; CREXi still has to prove them, and CoStar can offer procompetitive justifications.
Appeals, a cert petition and a disqualified law firm
The case has been in court six years without a trial on either side’s claims
After the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing in September 2025, CoStar petitioned the Supreme Court in December, arguing a de facto exclusive dealing claim cannot stand without exclusive contract terms. The Court denied review on March 23, 2026, without comment. CoStar’s general counsel called the antitrust claims a sideshow to the copyright case; CREXi said “CoStar has run out of delay tactics.”
CREXi moved from Keker, Van Nest & Peters to Quinn Emanuel in December 2025. On July 13, 2026, the court disqualified Quinn Emanuel and attorney Alex Spiro, finding the firm breached its duty of loyalty to CoStar, which it represented in an unrelated matter, by taking CREXi’s side without CoStar’s informed consent. The court refused to pause the case on August 10, and on August 20 CREXi moved to dismiss its own Ninth Circuit petition challenging the order.
- Dec. 2019Court
Xceligent judgment
A federal court in Kansas City enters a $500 million stipulated judgment for CoStar against Xceligent, then in Chapter 7 liquidation. Its insurers pay $10.75 million.
- Sept. 2020CoStar
CoStar sues CREXi
Copyright infringement, DMCA watermark removal, breach of contract and misappropriation. CoStar counts more than 10,000 of its images on CREXi.
- By early 2023CREXi
CREXi counterclaims
CREXi’s motion to dismiss CoStar’s claims fails. It counterclaims under Sherman Act sections 1 and 2, the Cartwright Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law.
- 2023Court
Antitrust counterclaims dismissed
The district court dismisses the amended antitrust counterclaims with prejudice and enters final judgment on them so CREXi can appeal.
- Jan. 2024Court
FTC files an amicus brief
The Federal Trade Commission, supporting neither party, tells the Ninth Circuit the dismissal rested on legal errors.
- June 23, 2025CREXi
Ninth Circuit revives the antitrust claims
The panel reverses the dismissal of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act and UCL counterclaims and affirms dismissal of the tortious interference claims.
- June 25, 2025Court
Summary judgment denied on both sides
The court finds CoStar owns the images at issue and rejects CREXi’s DMCA safe harbor and unclean hands defenses for the user-directed images. Damages and remaining facts go to trial.
- June 26, 2025CREXi
CoStar’s damages expert excluded
The court excludes the expert’s opinions on the hypothetical licensing value of CoStar’s images.
- Sept. 5, 2025Court
Opinion amended, rehearing denied
No Ninth Circuit judge asks for an en banc vote.
- Oct. 30, 2025CoStar
No delay for the copyright trial
The district court rejects CREXi’s motion to delay trial of CoStar’s copyright claims.
- Dec. 2025CoStar
CoStar petitions the Supreme Court
Docket 25-667 asks whether a de facto exclusive dealing claim can stand without exclusive contract terms.
- Mar. 23, 2026CREXi
Certiorari denied
The Supreme Court declines review without comment. The antitrust counterclaims return to the district court.
- Apr. to June 2026CREXi
Class actions follow
A brokerage files a nationwide antitrust class action in Virginia. A tenant files a lease data conspiracy suit in Illinois naming CoStar and five brokerages.
- July 13, 2026CoStar
Quinn Emanuel disqualified
The court disqualifies CREXi’s new counsel, finding the firm breached its duty of loyalty to CoStar, a client in an unrelated matter.
- Aug. 2026CoStar
Stay denied, petition dropped
The court refuses to pause the case on Aug. 10. On Aug. 20 CREXi moves to dismiss its own Ninth Circuit petition, No. 26-4938.
- Oct. 20, 2026Court
Pending
No trial date, verdict or settlement appears in the public record we could check.
Sources: CoStar’s cert petition ↗ Bisnow on the denial ↗ Daily Journal ↗ Law360 on the stay ↗ Law360 on the dropped petition ↗. We found no reporting on the case dated after August 2026.
Brokers, tenants and a residential portal
Brokers and tenants filed antitrust class actions in 2026, and CoStar took its photo claims to Zillow
The class actions borrow CREXi’s theory and widen it. One asks for damages for every broker who paid what it calls supracompetitive fees. The other reaches past listings to lease data, the rents and concessions brokerages report, and names five of the largest brokerages alongside CoStar. CoStar denies the allegations in both. On the copyright side, CoStar’s suit against Zillow brings the same watermark and photo claims against a residential portal, over rental listing photos.
Grand & Co. v. CoStar
Nationwide class of brokers and other customers alleging monopolization and restraints that stop customers sharing their own listings and data with CoStar’s rivals. Alleges CoStar controls about 80% of national online CRE listing services.
FitFactariDC v. CoStar et al.
Hub-and-spoke conspiracy claim naming CoStar, CBRE, JLL, Cushman & Wakefield, Colliers and Newmark. Alleges the brokerages exchanged nonpublic lease terms (effective rents, concessions, TI allowances) through CoStar, for office, industrial and retail tenants in 49 metros since June 2022. CoStar denies it.
CoStar v. Zillow
CoStar’s amended complaint alleges more than 53,000 watermarked rental listing photos appeared on Zillow and were syndicated onward. Zillow says users uploaded the images. No ruling on the pleadings was found.
AI-generated illustration. The Illinois suit alleges lease terms that brokerages report to CoStar moved between competitors through its database.
Sources: DiCello Levitt on the Grand & Co. filing ↗ Bisnow on the Illinois suit ↗ Real Estate News on Zillow ↗. The 80% share is that complaint’s allegation.
Two outcomes, both still open
A jury will put a price on the photo claims, and the counterclaims test whether CoStar’s broker terms are lawful
Listing photos in appraisal reports
An appraisal report that reproduces a comparable’s listing photo is copying an image someone owns. The CREXi case is about a competing listing platform, and nothing in the rulings addresses appraisal use. CoStar’s general counsel did say after the June 2025 ruling that the industry “is on notice that it will face judgment for any use of CoStar’s watermarked images.” CoStar’s subscription terms, not this case, set what a subscriber may reproduce in a report. An appraiser who wants a photo of each comparable can take one from the street during the inspection, or confirm that the license for the source platform covers reproduction in a client report.
AI-generated illustration.
Where comparable data comes from
Commercial appraisers who buy sale and lease comparables from CoStar get data that brokers reported to it. The Illinois suit challenges that flow for lease terms. The complaint alleges brokerages used CoStar to see each other’s nonpublic rents and concessions. If the suit survives a motion to dismiss and discovery changes what brokerages share, the depth of lease data available to subscribers could change with it. Confirming a lease comparable with a party to the lease gives an appraiser a check that does not depend on how the suit ends. Our commercial appraisal workflow feature covers how comparable data is assembled.
Prices and choices for data buyers
CREXi’s pricing allegations, including the 80% increase after Xceligent, are what persuaded the Ninth Circuit that the claims were plausible. If CREXi proves its claims, remedies could reach the contract terms and the blocking it alleges, which would make it easier for a broker to send one set of listings to several platforms. If CoStar wins the copyright trial with a large award, the case adds to Xceligent as a measure of what copying its photos and data can cost a rival. The class actions could add damages claims on top of either result.
Beyond CoStar
The de facto exclusive dealing holding binds federal courts in the Ninth Circuit, which covers California, Washington, seven other western states and two Pacific territories. Contract terms that are non-exclusive on paper can now support an exclusive dealing claim in those courts if specific provisions work as exclusivity in practice. The watermark question, whether a small logo counts as copyright management information under the DMCA, matters to any photographer or platform that relies on a mark to show who owns an image. Our private listings feature follows a related fight over who controls residential listing data.
What to watch next
- A trial date. None is public as of October 20, 2026. Whether the copyright claims are tried before or with the antitrust counterclaims will shape the trial.
- CREXi’s new counsel. The disqualification left CREXi to bring in trial lawyers for a case that has run since 2020.
- Motions to dismiss in Virginia and Illinois. These rulings will show whether other courts accept the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning.
- A ruling on the pleadings in CoStar v. Zillow. Zillow argues it did not upload the photos and so did not act with the volition direct infringement requires.
AI-generated illustration of a Southern California business district at dusk.
Using CoStar, CREXi or both in your own work?
Tell us how listing data and photo terms show up in your appraisal practice.We will follow this case to trial and report what changes for comparable data.→This article draws on the Ninth Circuit’s published opinion, the Supreme Court docket, the parties’ own announcements and trade press coverage. Market shares and conduct described as alleged are CREXi’s or the class plaintiffs’ allegations, which no court has found true. Summaries of the June 2025 rulings come from the parties’ announcements. Images and video are AI-generated and do not show either company’s properties, offices, photographs or marks. This article is general information, not legal advice.
The Signal / Monthly briefing
Follow the rules and lawsuits that shape valuation data.
One sourced briefing in the first week of each month.
Unsubscribe in one click. We don't sell your email or share it with sponsors. Privacy Policy