By Mike Scarcella
Oct 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to revive a lawsuit by a now-defunct real estate brokerage that accused Zillow ZG.O and the National Association of Realtors of conspiring to suppress competition in the online home listings market.
The justices turned away an appeal from Real Estate Exchange Inc $(REX)$, which was contesting a lower court's ruling that it failed to prove Zillow conspired with the National Association of Realtors to make REX’s listings harder to find on Zillow’s platform.
REX filed its lawsuit in 2021, targeting the National Association of Realtors' “no-commingling” rule, which allowed Zillow and other members to display homes from multiple listing services (MLS) separately from other properties. REX argued that the rule unfairly limited consumer choice.
REX also alleged that Zillow deceived home buyers by redesigning its website so that listings from multiple listing services affiliated with the realtors' association appeared separately from those of non-members such as REX.
A lawyer for REX did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Zillow in a statement welcomed the Supreme Court's decision and said it "reinforces our long-standing commitment to transparency, innovation and prioritizing consumers."
The National Association of Realtors in a statement said its rule, which was optional and is no longer in effect, did not violate antitrust laws.
Home listing services affiliated with the National Association of Realtors independently weighed whether to adopt the rule, court records show, and some did not follow it.
A federal judge dismissed REX’s antitrust claims before trial, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld that decision in March. The appeals court said Zillow’s adherence to the listings rule did not amount to an illegal conspiracy.
REX was allowed to proceed to trial in late 2023 on its consumer deception claim, but a jury ruled for Zillow.
In its petition to the Supreme Court, REX warned that the 9th Circuit’s ruling “signals to business associations that there is a loophole for ‘optional’ rules,” and said federal appeals courts are divided on whether those rules can impose antitrust liability.
The case is Real Estate Exchange Inc v. Zillow Group Inc et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 25-326.
For Real Estate Exchange: Bennett Rawicki of Hilgers Graben
For Zillow: Steven Engel of Dechert
For NAR: Christopher Michel of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
Read more:
US states sue Zillow, Redfin over rental listings
FTC accuses Zillow of paying Redfin $100 million to stop competing on rental listings
New lawsuit accuses Zillow of deceiving home buyers
Compass sues Zillow for allegedly stifling competition for home listings
(Reporting by Mike Scarcella)
Comments