Key facts
- Zillow argues the judge relied on inapplicable legal decisions.
- Zillow claims the judge failed to require evidence of anticompetitive effects.
- The lawsuit alleges Zillow is a monopoly power that makes it impossible to do business without its involvement.
- Plaintiffs felt compelled to join the Zillow ecosystem and become a Preferred Agent.
Zillow is requesting a U.S. Federal Court in Washington state to reconsider its ruling that permits an antitrust lawsuit to move forward. The lawsuit alleges that Zillow created an illegal tying arrangement by linking its marketing platform with Zillow Home Loans. In late September, the court denied Zillow's initial motion to dismiss the suit, allowing the plaintiffs' antitrust, consumer-protection, and unjust-enrichment claims to proceed. Zillow filed a motion earlier this month, arguing that the judge's decision was based on previous legal decisions that do not support the conclusions reached and that the claim is legally deficient. The company also contends that the judge did not require evidence of actual anticompetitive effects in the mortgage market. The lawsuit was originally filed in January by Stephanie Dupuis, who stated that Zillow's alleged monopoly power makes it impossible for agents to conduct business without engaging with Zillow's services. Dupuis and her team felt compelled to join the Zillow ecosystem by becoming a Preferred Agent.