A successful antitrust case against Zillow and Redfin is a step in the right direction, but housing affordability remains far from under control. Hours before trial was set to begin last month, the Federal Trade Commission and five state attorneys general settled their antitrust case against the companies.
While this settlement represents a significant victory for the government, it addresses only a portion of the issue. More than 30% of American households rent, and for many renters, the search begins and often ends within one company’s ecosystem—a major violation of antitrust principles.
The remedy does not directly reduce rental costs for average individuals. Instead, Zillow paid Redfin $100 million to shut down its multifamily rental-advertising business, transfer customers and sales forces, and remain out of the market for up to nine years. However, this deal has expired; Redfin must restart its former business within six months and display Zillow’s listings under a partnership that continues through at least 2030.
This settlement is preferable to potential alternatives such as fines, which often fail to address antitrust violations because monopolies can absorb penalties and continue their practices. Yet the agreement leaves critical issues unresolved.
The FTC was not alone in its efforts against Zillow and Redfin. Virginia, Connecticut, New York, Washington, and Arizona also joined the lawsuit. After securing required changes, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson hailed the result as a critical part of the Trump administration’s housing agenda.
This framing is problematic for antitrust advocates because the case specifically addressed rental listings and property managers, not broader housing affordability issues. The settlement does not directly lower rent costs for renters.
Zillow continues to operate Zillow Rentals, Trulia, and HotPads. Redfin’s restoration is a positive step, but eliminating the deal does not solve the problem due to its complexity.
Zillow’s dominance extends beyond rental listings into home buying through alleged “tying” tactics. In ongoing class action litigation, plaintiffs allege that Zillow leverages its monopoly over buyer leads to force real estate agents into steering clients toward Zillow Home Loans. By tying access to critical consumer leads to whether an agent pressures clients to use Zillow’s lending arm, the platform squeezes out independent lenders and denies buyers competitive mortgage rates.
Redfin is owned by Rocket Companies, which also owns Mr. Cooper, one of the country’s largest mortgage servicers—a potential antitrust violation that has drawn criticism from some in Congress.
The settlement does not constitute a complete solution. Renters may eventually see modest savings as a trickle-down effect occurs over time—but this process would take years and is indirect. To build on this success, three actions are critical:
1) Use FTC authority under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act to study the rental listing market for pricing, exclusivity arrangements, syndication terms, and leveraging mechanisms between lead generation and home financing.
2) Clarify that trading preferential access for exclusivity is not automatically legal—even if no money changes hands—what Zillow and Redfin did would have been illegal regardless of bribes.
3) Congress and state regulators must monitor developments as the 2030 deadline approaches, ensuring Zillow and Redfin cannot legally reconstruct their partnership.
The FTC started off strong but has a long road ahead. Over the next few years, it is critical that the agency refocus its efforts on anti-competitive tying to finish the fight for housing affordability.
Aiden Buzzetti is the president of the Bull Moose Project and the president of the 1776 Project Foundation.
