Zillow is asking the court to once again shut down a consumer class-action lawsuit that alleges the portal steers toward its mortgage business.
The Armstrong lawsuit—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. Recently dismissed and revived, Zillow has filed a new motion to dismiss that aims to end the suit permanently.
The Taylor/Armstrong lawsuit was dismissed back in July, but ruling Judge James Robart of the federal Western District of Washington left an opening for the plaintiffs to refile with another complaint if it could amend the “deficiencies” in their argument.
Judge Robart had ruled that the plaintiffs 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.
The plaintiffs did just that, filing an amended complaint in August, with new plaintiffs added to the list for additional evidence. In addition, they removed all brokerage defendants that had been previously named in past complaints. The claims of RESPA and other violations remained the same, however.
Now, Zillow has filed a motion to dismiss, asking Judge Robart to dismiss the suit with prejudice so that the plaintiffs may not refile again, “closing the door on further attempts to relitigate the same failed claims,” as the portal said in a post on its Front Porch blog.
In the post, Zillow stated that the new complaint “does nothing to fix the problems the court pointed out in its July dismissal.”
“Plaintiffs’ claims focus on the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Zillow Home Loans pre-approvals. But pre-approval letters are not a RESPA-covered settlement service—they’re a free, optional, nonbinding resource to help buyers understand what they can afford,” the post read.
Zillow also asserted that the plaintiffs in the case were “not required to use Zillow Home Loans,” and did not pay for their pre-approvals.
“In fact, most of them don’t even allege their agents referred them to Zillow Home Loans for a pre-approval at all,” the post continued. “And one claims she actively negotiated her Zillow Home Loans fees before closing—which is exactly the kind of buyer choice this lawsuit claims doesn’t exist.”
