REX vs. Zillow Case: Was It a Website Update or Antitrust Violation?
Did Zillow’s move harm non-MLS brokers?
A three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is weighing whether Zillow’s 2021 website update—segregating MLS and non-MLS listings—was an independent business decision or an anti-competitive scheme driven by NAR’s no-comingling rule. REX, the now-defunct discount brokerage, argues that Zillow’s compliance with the rule unfairly buried its listings, contributing to its downfall.
Zillow maintains it simply adjusted its website to align with MLS participation rules and that REX’s claims amount to shifting blame for business failure. NAR and Zillow deny any direct agreement to restrain trade, emphasizing the rule’s optional nature. However, the DOJ weighed in, asserting that even optional rules can create anti-competitive concerted actions.
At stake is whether Zillow’s move was a routine website redesign or an unlawful trade restriction harming non-MLS brokers. The court’s decision could have major implications for how real estate portals display listings and interact with MLSs in the future.
Why This Matters:
The ruling could impact listing visibility on major platforms and reshape how non-MLS agents compete in the digital marketplace. Agents should stay informed as the case unfolds, as it may influence future MLS policies and online listing practices.
