A federal judge has denied a joint bid by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a coalition of states to win early rulings on core questions in their antitrust case against Zillow and Redfin—leaving disputes over how the market is defined and whether the companies’ $100 million deal is illegal to be resolved at trial.
U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga denied the plaintiff’s joint motion for partial summary judgment following a July 8 hearing in Alexandria, Virginia. In the order, Trenga found that genuine disputes of material fact exist over the relevant product market, the relevant geographic market and the “presumptive illegality” of the defendants’ challenged conduct under Section 7 of the Clayton Act—among other issues.
The ruling is a procedural win for Zillow and Redfin, though not a decision on the merits. Rather than resolve those questions before trial in the government’s favor, the court will leave them to be decided on a full record.
Zillow and Redfin urged the court to deny the motion, arguing the FTC was trying to predetermine “fact-intensive” trial questions on a “one-sided” rendition of the record.
The defendants’ opposition contested three issues that track closely with Trenga’s ruling: the standard of review the FTC sought; the government’s definition of the relevant market; and whether a structural presumption of illegality could apply to a syndication agreement rather than a merger. On market definition, the companies argued the FTC’s “ILS-only” (internet listing service) framing ignores that property managers spend roughly half their advertising budgets on non-ILS channels, such as Google and social media.
The FTC and a group of state attorneys general sued Zillow and Redfin on Sept. 30, 2025, in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging their February 2025 agreement amounts to an illegal restraint on the market for ILS advertising for multifamily rental properties.
Under the deal, Zillow agreed to pay Redfin roughly $100 million plus ongoing fees over nine years; the FTC alleges Redfin, in exchange, wound down its independent rental advertising business and became an exclusive syndicator of Zillow’s listings. Five states joined the suit shortly after it was filed.
Zillow and Redfin have maintained the partnership is pro-competitive, giving renters more access to more listings and advertisers access to more renters.
The companies moved to dismiss the case earlier this year, arguing in part that the FTC had misdefined the relevant market—a fault line that has now resurfaced at summary judgment.
Trenga denied that motion in May, finding the FTC had plausibly alleged antitrust violations while noting the claims were fact-intensive and at an early stage.
