FTC and Coalition of State AGs Settle Challenge to Zillow and Redfin Partnership

The proposed settlement requires Redfin, which exited the provision of multifamily advertiser-facing internet listing services, to re-enter this sector.

On August 24, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced it reached a settlement resolving challenges to a partnership between Zillow Group, Inc., Zillow, Inc. (collectively, “Zillow”) and Redfin Corporation (“Redfin”). Zillow and Redfin, which are real estate internet listing services (“ILS”), enable property owners to advertise their rental listings to consumers looking for housing. In February 2025, Zillow and Redfin allegedly entered into a multifamily rental syndication agreement, whereby Redfin partnered with Zillow to exclusively list Zillow multifamily rental listings—or properties with 25 or more units—on its website for nine years in exchange for a $100 million payment. The agreement did not relate to Redfin’s real estate listings for other rental properties. According to the FTC’s complaint—later consolidated with a similar lawsuit filed by a group of state attorneys general (“State AGs”) from Arizona, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, and Washington also being resolved according to the FTC’s announcement—the partnership agreement eliminated head-to-head competition between Redfin and Zillow for the provision of ILS advertising of multifamily rentals.

According to the FTC and the State AGs, the Stipulated Final Order (“Order”)—which contains no admission of wrongdoing by Zillow or Redfin—voids the allegedly anticompetitive exclusivity provision, requires Redfin to re-enter and invest millions of dollars to re-develop its listings of multifamily rental properties within six months, and allows Redfin to continue syndicating Zillow listings as it rebuilds its own offering. The parties must also pay the State AGs $2 million collectively. The Order is to remain in effect for 10 years.

 Key Takeaways

• The Proposed Remedy Removes Exclusivity and Requires Redfin to Re-enter. The Order does not invalidate the partnership between Zillow and Redfin. Rather it removes the provision whereby Redfin would exclusively list Zillow multifamily rental listings and requires that the parties not enter into an agreement that would preclude Redfin from competing. By preserving the rest of the partnership agreement, the Order allows Redfin to continue its access to Zillow’s syndicated listings data, enabling Redfin to advertise both Zillow listings and new, non-Zillow listings it attracts from property owners.

• State AGs Unite With FTC. After several high-profile splits between federal antitrust enforcers and state attorneys general over whether to litigate or settle cases—including the recent Live Nation case—the FTC and five State AGs agreed to “use every inch of our joint state and federal law enforcement authority to drive down housing costs” in settling the case. While state antitrust authorities have increasingly positioned themselves as gap-fillers in antitrust enforcement—and have sometimes diverged from federal enforcers in doing so—housing costs remain a unifying enforcement interest. 

• FTC Appears Open to Settlement in Merger and Conduct Cases. Since the beginning of the second Trump Administration, the FTC has filed four civil antitrust conduct cases. The proposed Order to resolve the litigation against Zillow and Redfin will settle the final of those four cases, leaving the FTC with the three, older antitrust conduct cases that pre-date the current Administration: Amazon.com, Southern Glazer’s, and Syngenta / Corteva. The pattern of settlements is noteworthy. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson previously stated, in the merger context, that the FTC is open to settlements that protect competition. It appears this same approach may apply to conduct cases as well.

Background on the FTC and State AG’s Lawsuit

The FTC filed the underlying action against Zillow and Redfin on September 30, 2025, alleging that the exclusivity provision in Zillow and Redfin’s partnership agreement violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and Section 5 of the FTC Act. On October 1, 2025, a group of five State AGs from Arizona, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, and Washington filed a nearly identical lawsuit in the same court, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act. 

The lawsuits alleged that the partnership agreement, which prevented Redfin from competing in the market for ILS advertising for multifamily housing, harmed competition in two segments: (1) ILS advertising for rental properties and (2) ILS advertising for multifamily buildings. The FTC alleged that both segments were highly concentrated (HHIs over 2,500) and that the agreement further increased concentration (HHI changes of greater than 200). The FTC also alleged that Zillow held a large share of the segments, and that Zillow, Redfin, and CoStar amounted to 85% of the market. The lawsuit further alleged that the ILS segments were protected by high barriers to entry, including the need for many listings to attract renters and provide value to advertisers. Alongside the alleged elimination of head-to-head competition, the FTC alleged that Redfin terminated 450 employees that supported its multifamily advertising business and helped Zillow re-hire some of them. For further discussion of the FTC’s complaint, see our prior blog post here.  

Further Details on the Proposed Order

The proposed Order requires Redfin to re-enter and compete with Zillow for multifamily housing rental listings. Additionally, Redfin must invest in its restarted business, including by redeveloping advertising infrastructure, running targeted advertisements to drive property owners to advertise listings on Redfin, and hiring key employees to oversee the business unit. The proposed Order establishes monetary penalties of up to $1.6 million if Redfin fails to re-enter the ILS segment. It further requires that Zillow take certain actions to support Redfin’s re-entry. Specifically, Zillow must facilitate Redfin’s recruitment of Zillow employees, including waiving non-competes and anti-poaching provisions and agreeing not to prohibit Redfin’s hiring and retention of said employees. Zillow must also allow any of its current ILS customers whose contracts cannot be canceled within three months to renegotiate without cost or penalty. Finally, Redfin agreed to continue syndicating Zillow listings after re-entry pursuant to the parties’ original agreement, allowing Redfin to provide Zillow’s listings at least until June 2030 while developing its own offering.

Key Implications Going Forward

If approved, the Order would resolve the FTC and State AGs’ concerns, but leaves questions on compliance monitoring given some of the complexities involved in Redfin’s re-entry and increased investment in its multifamily apartment listings offering. Although the Order requires periodic compliance reports, it remains unclear how the FTC and the State AGs will assess whether Redfin’s investments and its steps toward renewed competitiveness are sufficient. Moreover, while current FTC leadership has espoused the values of structural rather than behavioral remedies, the proposed Order includes elements of both, and this hybrid approach may become relevant for resolving future conduct investigations.

The FTC and State AGs’ challenge of Redfin and Zillow’s partnership agreement should also serve as a reminder that state and federal antitrust authorities continue to scrutinize private agreements that may restrict competition. Even without an HSR filing, antitrust enforcers are actively identifying, investigating, and remediating allegedly anticompetitive arrangements. In the current regulatory environment, businesses should not assume that similar arrangements will escape scrutiny. Businesses should proactively evaluate their existing agreements to identify antitrust vulnerabilities and consider potential mitigations. When calibrating commercial arrangements with actual or potential competitors, businesses should take into account both the threat of a government investigation—and subsequent litigation—and follow-on private claims that can compound risk.  

To receive the latest insights on US legal developments, subscribe to the Freshfields A Fresh Take Blog.