Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—W.D. Wash.: Zillow must face tying and monopolization claims, (Nov 13, 2026)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

Independent real estate agents brought suit alleging that the online real estate portal leverages its “digital real estate dominance to restrain competition, tie separate products, and coerce real estate professionals.”

The federal district court in Seattle, Washington declined to reconsider a prior order declining to dismiss a suit alleging that Zillow Group, Inc. leveraged its digital real estate dominance to restrain competition, tie separate products, and coerce real estate professionals. Several real estate agents alleged that Zillow engaged in two independent anticompetitive practices: (1) a Customer Relation Management (“CRM”) tying arrangement and (2) a coercive steering scheme involving Zillow Home Loans. In September, the court rejected Zillow’s motion to dismiss the Sherman Act and state unfair trade practices claims. Zillow argued in its reconsideration motion that the court committed manifest error by relying on several citations that did not appear to support its rulings. However, the court rejected each of Zillow’s arguments for reconsideration (Dupuis v. Zillow Group, Inc. , No. 3:26-cv-05049-JLR (W.D. Wash. Nov. 10, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiffs are independent real estate agents who brought suit against Zillow Group, Inc. Zillow operates the “most widely used online real estate search portal in the United States.” The agents alleged that Zillow engages in two independent anticompetitive practices: (1) a Customer Relation Management (“CRM”) tying arrangement and (2) a coercive steering scheme involving Zillow Home Loans (“ZHL”). The agents allege that Zillow requires Premier or Preferred agents to purchase and use its proprietary FUB CRM software to manage referred leads. Zillow enforces this requirement despite the presence of competing CRM platforms and its prior practice of providing referrals through a complimentary CRM tool. According to the agents, Zillow has used its market power to foreclose competitors from an excessively large portion of the market for CRM software, citing Zillow’s own admission that FUB now “powers daily activity for more than 80% of the highest-volume teams in the country.”

The agents also alleged that Zillow extracts additional profits by using its lead-generation monopoly to coerce real estate agents into steering homebuyers toward ZHL, its mortgage lending service. Zillow uses FUB to track the performance of Preferred Agents, tying their internal ratings directly to the volume of loan pre-approvals they secure through ZHL. Under this system, higher-rated agents receive a higher quantity and quality of lucrative client connections. Conversely, agents who fail to direct enough clients to ZHL receive a demotion in their internal ratings, are assigned fewer or lower-value connections, face substantial financial losses, and risk program termination. Zillow allegedly enforces these penalties strictly, regardless of the agent’s tenure or past success across other performance metrics.

Claims. The agents filed suit for (1) violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against all Defendants for tying and unreasonable agreement in restraint of trade, and Section 2 of the Sherman Act for abuse of monopoly power; (2) violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”) against all Washington-domiciled Defendants for anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive business practices; (3) unjust enrichment against all Washington-domiciled Defendants under Washington law, and against all Defendants under the laws of Maryland and Oregon; (4) violation of the Maryland Antitrust Act against all Defendants; and (5) the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act (“UTPA”) against all Defendants.

Motion to dismiss. On Sept. 28, 2026, the court denied Zillow’s motion to dismiss the case. The court found that the agents adequately plead the relevant product markets for (1) real estate search, (2) homebuyer referrals via Premier/Preferred programs, (3) CRM software (), and (4) residential mortgage lending. Additionally, the court found a nationwide geographic market was plausible given Zillow’s national platform policies, despite the local nature of individual transactions. The court also denied the motion to dismiss the claims brought under the Sherman Act §§1 and 2 asserting that Zillow had engaged in tying with respect to Follow Up Boss CRM and Zillow’s referral programs and for coercively steering buyers toward Zillow Home Loans through quotas, ratings, and penalties. The order further sustained the Washington and Maryland state law antitrust claims, the Washington Consumer Protection Act and Oregon UTPA claims, and the unjust enrichment claims under the laws of Washington, Maryland, and Oregon. The court found that the alleged mid-stream coercive mandates fell outside the parties’ original contracts and that one agent’s standing was sufficient to allow the multi-plaintiff action to proceed at the pleading stage.

Motion for reconsideration. The court also denied Zillow’s Motion for Reconsideration. Zillow argued that the earlier order contained manifest errors because several citations did not support the rulings and moved for reconsideration on five points. However, the court disagreed.

First, Zillow argued that Bohr v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Ass’n, 567 P.3d 413 (Or. 2025), does not support the court’s finding that “[p]aid referral loops function as a transaction” under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act (“UTPA”). The court found that Bohr, however, implies that a plaintiff sufficiently pleads a “transaction” for UTPA purposes when the plaintiff pays for goods or services, which is how the agents here allege they interact with Zillow, as the real estate agents “pay for referrals,” which they allege is the transaction in their UTPA claim.

Second, Zillow asserts that the court “incorrectly conflate[d] Article III and antitrust standing” and committed manifest error by relying on Mecinas v. Hobbs, 30 F.4th 890 (9th Cir. 2022) to deny Zillow’s motion to dismiss on antitrust standing. The court also rejected this argument, noting that two of the cited cases decided antitrust standing on summary judgment, showing that courts often evaluate it at later stages. Accordingly, the court found that it did not commit manifest error when it denied Zillow’s motion to dismiss the agents’ tying claim because Zillow does not contest the named agent’s standing.

The court found that Zillow’s third argument, that the court erroneously relied on In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 147 F.4th 917, 949-50 (9th Cir. 2025), to “excuse Plaintiffs” from alleging “anticompetitive effects, such as increased costs, reduced output, or decreased quality, in the mortgage lending market” was erroneous. The court stressed that it “explicitly pointed to Plaintiffs’ allegation that ‘Zillow blocks homebuyers from receiving information about superior third-party loan products by threatening to terminate agents who do not meet steering quotas.’” The agents alleged that Zillow’s “coercive platform rules” resulted in decreased quality in the home lending and real estate referrals markets because agents can provide homebuyers with fewer options and lower-quality loan products, the court indicated that this was a dynamic also present in Google Play.

The court also denied Zillow’s motion for reconsideration on the agents’ WCPA claim.

Zillow takes issue with the court citing PBTM LLC v. Football Nw., LLC, 511 F. Supp. 3d 1158, 1178-82 (W.D. Wash. 2021), to support its conclusion that the agents plausibly alleges an unfair trade practice under the WCPA based on their claim that Zillow’s conduct violated the Sherman Act. The court indicated that “Although Zillow is correct that PBTM addresses market definition, it also states that a court’s analysis of “federal antitrust claims extends to its state law claims under the WCPA[.]”

Finally, the court rejected Zillow’s challenges to the court’s citations supporting its conclusion that the agents sufficiently pled unjust enrichment claims. The court determined that Zillow mischaracterizes the court’s reliance on the challenged citations, noting that even if some of the cited cases did not use the exact phrase “mid-stream,” they support unjust-enrichment recovery when alleged conduct falls outside the contract or transfers significant uncompensated burdens.

The Case is No. 3:26-cv-05049-JLR.

Judge: Robart, J.

Attorneys: Mariah Harrod (Keller Rohrback LLP) for Stephanie M. Dupuis. Beau W. Buffier (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati) for Zillow Group Inc.

Companies: Zillow Group Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust WashingtonNews GCNNews