Editor’s note: The COURT REPORT is RISMedia’s weekly look at current and upcoming lawsuits, investigations and other legal developments around real estate.
FTC’s antitrust case against Zillow and Redfin to proceed
A federal judge in Virginia denied a motion to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) major antitrust lawsuit against Zillow and Redfin, clearing the way for the case to advance.
Last Wednesday, the judge rejected arguments from the two companies that the FTC’s allegations didn’t meet the legal threshold for an antitrust claim. The judge found instead that the complaint states plausible claims under federal antitrust laws.
The FTC contends that Zillow and Redfin’s $100 million agreement amounts to an illegal restraint on trade that would likely raise prices for property managers seeking to advertise vacancies in multifamily rental buildings and reduce both companies’ incentive to invest in making their platforms easier for renters to use.
In an emailed statement sent to RISMedia, a Zillow spokesperson said that “this decision simply allows the case to move forward. We remain confident we will demonstrate the pro-competitive and consumer benefits of our partnership with Redfin in court. In the meantime, our work supporting renters and housing providers continues uninterrupted.”
A Redfin spokesperson, through an emailed statement, told RISMedia that the company strongly disagrees with the FTC’s allegations and remains confident that the company will be vindicated by a court of law.
“Our partnership with Zillow has given Redfin.com visitors access to more rental listings and our advertising customers access to more renters,” the Redfin spokesperson said. “By the end of 2024, it was clear that the existing number of Redfin advertising customers couldn’t justify the cost of maintaining our rentals sales force. Partnering with Zillow cut those costs and enabled us to invest more in rental-search innovations on Redfin.com, directly benefiting apartment seekers.”
Zillow, other defendants seek to block plaintiffs from adding eXp to giant class-action
After plaintiffs in a sprawling class-action against Zillow attempted to rope eXp into their lawsuit, the portal and other defendants in the case are crying foul, arguing that the move is procedurally improper.
In a court filing in the Western District of Washington, lawyers for Zillow, Real Brokerage and two Zillow-affiliated teams claimed that plaintiffs—recent Zillow customers who claim they suffered economic losses from being “steered” to use Zillow agents and loans—failed to follow court rules when adding eXp as a defendant.
Defendants note that Judge James L. Robart, who is overseeing the case, is currently considering whether to throw out some or all of the allegations, and asked him to wait until after that decision is made before allowing a new company to be added to the lawsuit.
“The Motion (if granted) would only serve to waste the time and resources Defendants have spent preparing,” the defendants wrote.
According to the filing, plaintiffs “concede” that their latest update to the lawsuit does not make any substantive changes, but replaces a brokerage previously dropped from the lawsuit with eXp, also adding another plaintiff (the lawsuit is seeking class-action, focusing on consumers who used Zillow and were directed to Zillow Flex agents or its home loan service).
As broker lawsuits against the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) and local MLSs have so far failed to gain traction in court, one lawsuit is still stuck in the jurisdiction phase, as a federal judge considers whether NAR “transacts business” in an area based on the operations of local and state associations.
Georgia broker lawsuit stalls on jurisdictional questions
The lawsuit, filed in Georgia by broker Jerome Milko in early 2025, alleges that NAR’s “three-way agreement”—which requires membership in state, local and national associations, rather than allowing brokers to choose—violates federal antitrust laws.
Notably, Georgia is one of four states where it is illegal to make Realtor® membership a requirement for MLS access. Other broker lawsuits have focused on that stipulation (even as NAR has long officially deferred to local MLSs on those rules).
Milko instead argues that paying “duplicative” dues harms real estate professionals and violates the law.
Over a year after the lawsuit was filed, however, NAR and Milko are still wrangling over whether the lawsuit should proceed in Georgia. Milko argues that “NAR has continuous, systematic national contacts,” which allows Georgia to be the proper venue.
In a filing last week, NAR responded that none of the “activities” Milko has identified “reflect any substantial, day-to-day conduct by NAR in this District,” instead saying those activities are those of “independent” state and local associations.
At least three other recent broker lawsuits naming NAR have been dismissed in the early stages, with two plaintiffs appealing or refiling their allegations.
The judge overseeing Milko’s case had not yet ruled on the jurisdiction issue at press time.
