Editor’s note: The COURT REPORT is RISMedia’s weekly look at current and upcoming lawsuits, investigations and other legal developments around real estate.
U.S. Veterans sue Veterans United Home Loans, alleging RESPA violations and steering
A proposed class-action lawsuit, Peyton v. Veterans United Home Loans, has been filed in the Western District of Missouri against Veterans United Home Loans, Veterans United Realty (Realty Search Solutions) and the Mortgage Research Center, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).
Three U.S. Veteran homebuyers—from Tennessee, Texas and Pennsylvania—claim the companies misled military buyers by presenting themselves as affiliated with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, while also operating an illegal kickback scheme in which affiliated real estate agents were required to pay roughly 35% of their commission back to Veterans United in exchange for receiving client leads.
The plaintiffs allege this arrangement steered veterans into costlier loans with higher interest rates without proper disclosure, in direct violation of RESPA’s prohibitions on steering and undisclosed referral payments.
Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys’ fees; Veterans United has denied the allegations and stated it looks forward to contesting the claims through the legal process.
Zillow and Redfin jointly push back against FTC suit
Rivals Zillow and Redfin filed a joint legal briefing in Virginia federal court, pushing back against an antitrust lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and five state attorneys general.
The regulators allege that the two companies’ rental listing “syndication” agreement—which added Redfin sites to the Zillow Rentals Network—effectively paid Redfin to exit the rental market, illegally consolidating an already concentrated industry.
In their response, Zillow and Redfin called the lawsuit “meritless,” arguing that regulators ignored the pro-competitive benefits of the deal and misrepresented how online real estate listing services operate.
The companies contend that the agreement directly benefits renters by giving them access to more listings on their preferred platforms, aligning with the purpose antitrust law.
Zillow and Redfin are asking the presiding judge to dismiss the case, asserting that the legal deficiencies in the FTC’s claims are “fatal” to the lawsuit.
Works Industries dropped from Zillow buyer commission lawsuit
In the consolidated Taylor-Armstrong lawsuit filed against Zillow and other defendants in the Western District of Washington, plaintiffs and defendants Works Industries, LLC filed a stipulated notice of dismissal, agreeing to drop all claims against the Oregon-based company without prejudice.
Works Industries was one of several smaller defendants named alongside the Zillow entities, Real Broker, LLC, GK Properties, and Frano Team in the case. The remaining defendants, including the various Zillow entities, remain in the litigation.
Buyer commission plaintiffs cite drug pricing ruling to bolster claims against brokerages
Plaintiffs in the buyer commission lawsuits are citing a recent decision in a separate federal lawsuit involving pharmaceutical companies to assert they can sue real estate brokerages for the same alleged violations covered by settlements in the seller-filed class actions.
On Feb. 18, plaintiffs in a lawsuit naming HomeServices filed a “notice of supplemental authority,” asking the judge overseeing their case to refer to a recent decision in a sprawling lawsuit by 45 states against several large pharmaceutical companies, claiming that the 65-page opinion supports their legal theory that “indirect purchasers” (meaning homebuyers in their case) can still sue for damages after “direct purchasers” (meaning sellers) have already agreed to settlements over the same claims (price fixing through commission rules).
Calling the ruling “directly relevant,” plaintiffs point to the opinion by Judge Michael P. Shea of the District of Connecticut, who allowed states to move forward with price fixing claims against generic drug manufacturers, despite the fact that consumers have made the same claims—and settled.
So far, courts have ruled that buyer claims can move forward despite the seller settlements, with at least three separate federal judges agreeing that buyers can continue to sue brokerages and the National Association of Realtors®. Keller Williams became one of the first companies to settle these buyer suits last month, paying $20 million.
HomeSmart seeks mediation in buyer commission suit as parties agree to pause proceedings
In a buyer commission lawsuit consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois, plaintiffs and defendant HomeSmart International jointly filed a motion to stay all proceedings and deadlines as to HomeSmart while the parties pursue mediation.
The court had previously granted preliminary approval in Oct. 2025 to a class settlement with several other defendants in the case, which includes an opt-in procedure allowing additional brokerages to join the settlement by contributing to a global settlement fund.
HomeSmart and plaintiffs have agreed to attend mediation on March 24, 2026 to explore whether HomeSmart can resolve the claims against it through that opt-in process. The parties argue the stay will conserve judicial resources and maximize the opportunity for resolution.
