Zillow Class Action Lawsuit to Move to Discovery as Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss

A federal judge has given the green light for a class action monopoly lawsuit against Zillow to move into its next phase.

This week, the courts denied Zillow a dismissal. Instead, Judge James L. Robart allowed five claims of misconduct to move into a discovery stage for federal antitrust violations under the Sherman Act, plus consumer protection claims in Washington, Maryland, and Oregon.

The Dupuis lawsuit, filed in January 2026, is a class action case brought by Stephanie Dupuis, an agent in Washington, on behalf of any real estate agent who was enrolled in Zillow's Preferred or Flex Agent program from 2022 onward.

The lawsuit centres on two allegations. First, Zillow is leaning on agents to use its proprietary software, Follow Up Boss (FUB), as a condition of receiving client referrals. Second, Zillow coerces those same agents to steer homebuyers toward more expensive mortgages offered by Zillow Home Loans (ZHL), and punishes those who refuse with fewer referrals or termination from the program.

The court's assessment this week was that the plaintiffs plausibly allege that agents have little to no choice but to participate in Zillow's referral ecosystem due to its national scale and market leadership position. Claims that Zillow is a monopoly (exceeding 61% market share) were deemed feasible, meaning agents face a material risk to their business if they do not abide by Zillow's tactics.

Robart wrote that Zillow's argument that it is reasonable to expect agents to hit certain targets as part of their partnership with Zillow, "ignores the direct business harms detailed in the complaint."

"Plaintiffs explicitly allege they suffered lost business, reduced lead pipelines, and terminated participation in the Preferred program as direct retaliation for refusing to meet ZHL targets.

"Because homebuyers overwhelmingly default to Zillow's platform, Plaintiffs plausibly allege that independent agents have no choice but to participate in Zillow's referral ecosystem to access clients."

Selected quotes from this week's ruling include:

When an antitrust defendant deploys restrictive rules to collect inflated fees or compel commercial concessions, such conduct can constitute an unfair business practice rooted in anticompetitive effects.

Zillow’s argument that its targets are merely non-binding metrics is unpersuasive. This court has already sustained Plaintiffs’ federal antitrust claims for platform tying, vertical steering, and monopolization. Plaintiffs explicitly allege they suffered lost business, reduced lead pipelines, and terminated participation in the Preferred program as direct retaliation for refusing to meet ZHL targets.

[Plaintiffs allege] that Zillow engaged in actionable misconduct within its Flex and Preferred Agent programs. Underpinning these claims are detailed allegations that Zillow explicitly failed to disclose to real estate professionals that access to its referral network was strictly contingent upon steering clients to ZHL, satisfying ZHL pre-approval quotas, and purchasing the FUB CRM system.

According to Plaintiffs, Zillow explicitly threatened to terminate agents or cut off their lead allocations if they failed to meet targets. Plaintiffs further allege that leaving the brokerage was the only path to avoid the financial penalties of Zillow’s automated quotas. This forced transition functions as a constructive discharge from the platform ecosystem.

Plaintiffs have plausibly stated all elements of [their claims] and the court denies Zillow’s motion to dismiss this count.

Plaintiffs assert that Zillow knowingly accepted and appreciated monetary benefits conferred by class members in two forms: (1) revenues derived from conditioning valuable real estate referrals on steering clients to ZHL, and (2) supra-competitive referral fees and rates extracted from Preferred Agents.

If a defendant deploys coercive, mid-stream changes that fall completely outside the original contemplation of the parties or transfer significant, uncompensated financial burdens onto the plaintiffs.

In its motion, Zillow asserts that Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims fail as a matter of law because: (1) the parties are bound by valid, express contracts covering the terms of their participation in the Preferred Agent program; (2) Plaintiffs fail to allege they conferred a cognizable benefit upon Zillow; and (3) Plaintiffs fail to allege any inequitable circumstances surrounding the retention of any such benefit.

The court finds Zillow’s arguments unpersuasive.

Plaintiffs explicitly alleged that they joined the Preferred network under a baseline agreement to pay commission splits for client leads. They further alleged that Zillow subsequently exploited this access by requiring them to pay $500 per month for FUB software and satisfy coercive ZHL mortgage pre-approval quotas.

[These mandates] represent significant, extra-contractual additions that fall completely outside the original bargain.

The court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that they conferred a cognizable benefit upon Zillow. The court rejects Zillow’s contention that assets—such as mandatory software subscription revenues and mortgage referrals—fall completely outside the scope of actionable benefits.

Finally, Zillow argues that its distribution of client leads creates a complete, equitable exchange of value that precludes an unjust enrichment claim. The court again disagrees. While Zillow once provided an independent lead-generation service, the ACAC plausibly alleges that Zillow subsequently leveraged its network to extract extra-contractual advantages falling outside the original agreement.

Zillow defended itself in a statement, saying:

"We continue to believe the plaintiff’s claims are fundamentally flawed. Buyers on Zillow are always in control of which agent and lender they work with. Zillow gives consumers and agents genuine choice, and nothing alleged in this litigation changes that. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves."

A post on Zillow's blog is being updated throughout the lawsuit, where Zillow clearly outlines that buyers are always in control of which agent they work with. The latest comment says, "The court ruled on our motion to dismiss, but it has not ruled on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Zillow gives consumers and agents genuine choice, and buyers on Zillow are always in control of which agent and lender they work with." A previous update adds that Zillow maintains that its Preferred agent program "operates transparently" and that ZHL pre-approvals are "free and non-binding."

Also this week, Zillow appointed Jaclyn Anderson as Vice President for External Affairs and Business Communications, joining from Starbucks to continue "a career spent helping companies navigate complex, high-visibility moments."