07/27/2026 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 07/27/2026 20:23
Key takeaways
A federal judge has granted Zillow's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' baseless complaint in the Taylor v. Zillow lawsuit.
The court rejected plaintiffs' entire suit, even after five rounds of complaints, finding that every claim they asserted against Zillow and its partners in their 100+ page complaint was deficient.
The court rejected the plaintiff's allegations flatly: "Plaintiffs' claims of lack of notice are implausible given Zillow's express, repeated disclosures," Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington wrote in the July 27 order. "Zillow's website displays the property's actual listing agent."
Throughout Zillow's platform, our Terms of Use, "Contact Agent" interface, Touring Agreement, and Affiliated Business Arrangement Disclosure make Zillow's practices clear to every consumer. Indeed, plaintiffs did not allege anything that would deceive a reasonable consumer.
The other theory at the core of the case fared no better. Plaintiffs claimed Zillow's tools drove up what buyers paid for homes, but the court rejected those claims. As we've explained from the start, our tools don't drive buyer-agent commissions. Nor are buyers ever required to finance with Zillow Home Loans. And of the 11 plaintiffs in this case, only two even used Zillow Home Loans, and neither could show that drove up their costs.
What the court ultimately found was that plaintiffs had described ordinary business activity and called it a conspiracy. After a whopping five rounds of complaints, they still hadn't identified the who, what, when, where, or how that would connect Zillow's standard practices to any actual injury - so the court dismissed every count.
"Plaintiffs fail to plead specific facts showing how Defendants' practices actively undermined the home-buying process, restricted informed lender choice, or eroded trust in real estate professionals," the judge wrote.
Here are the facts:
We've said from the start that the arguments in this case were completely baseless - and the court agreed.
We'll continue doing what we've always done: building tools that give consumers more transparency, more information and more choice in the home-buying process.