Zillow and Redfin settle antitrust case with FTC
Zillow and Redfin have reached a settlement with the FTC and five state attorneys general over a 2025 rental-listing partnership accused of harming competition. The deal was announced just before the case was set to go to trial.
Real estate platforms Zillow and Redfin have settled a legal dispute with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and attorneys general from five states — Arizona, Connecticut, New York, Virginia and Washington. The settlement was announced on Monday, just hours before the case was scheduled to head to trial.
The dispute centered on a 2025 partnership under which Redfin displayed Zillow's rental listings on its own websites instead of directly competing with Zillow for rental advertisers. The arrangement could have kept Redfin out of the rental advertising business for up to nine years. Redfin also owns two major rental-listing platforms, Rent.com and ApartmentGuide.com.
According to the authorities, Zillow had agreed to pay Redfin $100 million to keep it from competing. The companies described the partnership as a way to give renters access to a larger pool of listings, but the FTC argued that Zillow was effectively paying one of its biggest competitors to stop competing — a move that could have allowed higher prices and less favorable terms for property managers, as well as lower-quality listings for consumers.
What changes now
Under the settlement, Redfin must re-enter the rental advertising business, and restrictions that previously prevented it from independently competing for property-management customers have been lifted. The relationship between the two companies isn't ending entirely — Redfin can keep displaying Zillow's rental listings, but it will now be free to compete for its own customers, sell advertising, showcase its own clients' listings, and pursue new rental customers without sharing sensitive business data with Zillow.
The case comes just months after the Department of Justice's settlement with Ticketmaster in a similar antitrust dispute over alleged suppression of competition.
