5 States Join FTC in Suing Zillow and Redfin Over Rentals Partnership

Attorneys general from five states have joined the Federal Trade Commission in an antitrust lawsuit alleging that Zillow and Redfin entered a 2025 partnership that unlawfully reduced competition for advertising multifamily rentals on major internet listing services. Regulators say the arrangement effectively removed Redfin as a rival in the rental ads business, concentrating market power and likely raising advertising costs for property managers—costs that can flow through to renters.

SEO targets: Zillow Redfin lawsuit, FTC antitrust housing, multifamily rental advertising, internet listing services competition, rental market consolidation.

What the lawsuits allege

- The agreement: A large, multi-year commercial deal in which Redfin exited or curtailed direct competition in multifamily rental advertising and relied on Zillow’s network for rental distribution.
- Regulatory theory: The pact allegedly restrains trade by eliminating head-to-head rivalry and functions like an acquisition in substance, even if structured as a partnership.
- Consumer harm narrative: With fewer independent platforms, property managers may face higher advertising prices and fewer options, which can translate into higher rents or reduced concessions for tenants.
- State participation: Multiple state attorneys general filed parallel complaints echoing the FTC’s claims and asserting harm within their borders.

Who’s involved (at a glance)

PartyRoleCore positionFederal regulatorPlaintiffClaims the partnership unlawfully reduces competition in multifamily rental ads.State attorneys general (5 states)Co-plaintiffsArgue the deal harms local renters and property owners by raising ad costs.Zillow & RedfinDefendantsMaintain that broader distribution and combined capabilities benefit advertisers and renters.Federal district courtVenueWill decide on injunctions, discovery scope, and ultimate liability.

Why this matters for housing stakeholders

- Rental ad pricing and reach: If one platform gains outsized control, property managers could see fewer choices and higher rates to reach renters at scale.
- Market structure precedent: The case tests whether a “partnership” that transfers customers, data, and incentives can be treated like a merger under antitrust law.
- Signal to proptech: Listing platforms, data vendors, and syndicators may face tighter scrutiny when deals reduce an active competitor’s independence.

Possible outcomes to watch

- Preliminary injunction or unwinding: The court could pause or require rollback of exclusivity or non-compete terms during litigation.
- Conduct remedies: Limits on exclusivity, data-sharing, or revenue-sharing arrangements; requirements to preserve interoperability and fair access.
- No violation found: The court could determine the agreement is pro-competitive if evidence shows better service or lower effective prices without durable harm.
- Settlement: Behavioral commitments around pricing, access, or contract length could resolve the case before trial.

Practical implications now

For property managers and owners
- Benchmark alternatives: Track ad performance and effective cost-per-lease across multiple channels (platforms, direct websites, social, search).
- Protect negotiation leverage: Keep historical pricing and performance data to counter above-market rate increases.
- Diversify demand: Strengthen direct lead generation (SEO, email capture, virtual tours) to reduce single-platform dependency.
For renters
- Watch concessions: If ad costs climb, look for offsetting incentives—reduced deposits, free parking, or weeks-free promotions—especially on new lease-ups.
- Compare broadly: Search across multiple sites and property websites to avoid selection bias from any one platform’s inventory.
For marketers and brokers
- A/B test channels: Run parallel campaigns and maintain your own lead funnels.
- Contract hygiene: Avoid long lock-ins; negotiate audit rights and clear performance KPIs.

Key questions the court will weigh

- Market definition: Is “multifamily rental advertising on internet listing services” a distinct market with limited substitutes?
- Competitive effects: Did the partnership materially reduce rivalry and lead to higher prices or lower quality/innovation?
- Barriers to entry: Can new or smaller portals realistically replace a sidelined national competitor?
- Efficiencies: Do any claimed efficiencies benefit advertisers and renters enough to offset competitive harm?

Regulators argue the Zillow–Redfin partnership

Regulators argue the Zillow–Redfin partnership crossed the line from collaboration into competitor elimination in the multifamily rental ads space. The outcome will shape how listing platforms structure distribution, exclusivity, and data-sharing deals going forward. In the meantime, property managers should diversify marketing channels, document performance and pricing, and preserve leverage—while renters and agents broaden their search strategies to ensure full market visibility.

https://agentsgather.com/5-states-join-ftc-in-suing-zillow-and-redfin-over-rentals-partnership/