The plaintiffs who filed a recently dismissed lawsuit against Zillow over alleged steering to the portal’s mortgage services are looking to reopen the class action with an amended complaint, filed yesterday.
The suit—originally filed back in November 2025 and later consolidated with another similar lawsuit Taylor v. Zillow—alleges that referrals to Zillow Home Loans are a “coercive scheme,” violating RESPA (the Real Estate Procedures Act) and other state and federal laws.
Essentially, the lawsuit claims that Zillow exerts “enormous pressure” on real estate agents who use its popular Premier Agent or Flex programs to refer clients to Zillow Home Loans, using its control of leads to ensure agents steer clients to Zillow loans, preventing the use of outside lenders and resulting in borrowers paying more.
The third amended complaint has now added new plaintiffs to the docket, as well as removed all brokerage defendants that were previously named (GK Properties in Nevada and eXp Realty in Washington). The complaint, however, maintains its claims of RESPA and other violations.
The filing stated that claims of RESPA violations must involve three stipulations—“(1) exchanged a payment or thing of value (2) pursuant to an agreement to refer real estate settlement services; and (3) an actual referral”—all of which the filing said the plaintiffs have met.
The new plaintiffs added are Brandon Daugherty and Rebecca Robbins, both of whom purchased homes in 2026 using Zillow Preferred agents, and alleged they were steered toward using Zillow Home Loans and subsequently overpaid for their loans. This is the same circumstances the other plaintiffs—Araba Armstrong, David Liao and Furgus Wilson—allege they faced in their home purchases using Zillow agents.
This shift in defendants also comes after U.S. District Judge James L. Robart previously granted a motion to compel arbitration with the defendants of the Real Broker, LLC and Florida-based Frano Team.
Robart had also previously paused discovery in the case back in March while he weighed Zillow’s motion to dismiss. His decision on the motion came just three weeks ago, granting Zillow’s motion to dismiss the suit due to it not “meet(ing) the legal standard to move forward.”
In his decision, Robart wrote that he would allow the plaintiffs another shot to amend “deficiencies” in their lawsuit, but also wrote that the lawsuit failed to show that Zillow engaged in a conspiracy with real estate teams or engaged in practices that were “likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.”
“Because Zillow discloses the challenged conduct in its (terms of use) and other consumer-facing notices, and because Plaintiffs fail to establish that the Zillow Defendants’ conduct is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer, the court determines that such conduct is neither deceptive nor unfair under (the relevant consumer protection law),” he wrote.
