> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.consumernews.ai/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Zillow paid Redfin $100 million to stop competing. Now regulators are making Redfin come back - URL: https://www.consumernews.ai/zillow-paid-redfin-100-million-to-stop-competing-now-regulators-are-making-redfin-come-back/ - Published: 2026-08-24T20:19:02.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-24T20:19:02.000Z - Description: There appears to be a lot of competition in the apartment marketplace. But look closely and what do you see? - Author: James R. Hood # - **Zillow paid Redfin $100 million in a 2025 deal under which Redfin shut down its multifamily rental-advertising business and agreed to stay out of that market for as long as nine years.** - **The FTC and five states sued, alleging the arrangement eliminated an important competitor and contributed to higher advertising prices.** - **Under a proposed settlement announced Monday, Redfin must rebuild its rental-advertising operation within six months and spend millions of dollars competing with Zillow again.** Renters browsing Zillow, Redfin, Rent.com or ApartmentGuide.com may appear to have plenty of places to hunt for an apartment. But federal regulators say there was considerably less competition behind those websites than consumers might have realized. The Federal Trade Commission and five states [announced Monday](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-secures-order-resolving-antitrust-concerns-z?ref=consumernews.ai) that Zillow and Redfin have agreed to unwind key parts of a $100 million arrangement that regulators alleged essentially paid Redfin to stop competing with Zillow in the business of advertising apartments. Under the proposed court order, Redfin must reenter the rental internet-listing-services market within six months, rebuild the technology and sales organization needed to compete, and make substantial investments in the business for years to come. The settlement arrives just as the case was scheduled to go to trial in federal court in Virginia. "This kind of payment to a competitor to exit a market and stop competing violates the antitrust laws," Daniel Guarnera, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, said in announcing the agreement. The proposed order still must be approved and signed by the federal judge overseeing the case. ## The $100 million deal The dispute dates to February 2025. At the time, Zillow and Redfin operated two of the country's largest networks of rental-listing websites. Zillow's properties included Zillow Rentals, Trulia and HotPads, while Redfin owned Rent.com and ApartmentGuide.com. According to the FTC, the companies had been competing for business from owners and managers of multifamily rental properties. Then they struck a deal. Zillow agreed to pay Redfin $100 million. Redfin agreed to terminate its advertising relationships with multifamily property managers, help transfer those customers to Zillow and shut down the remainder of its competing advertising business. Redfin also agreed to display Zillow-supplied apartment listings across its websites and stay out of the multifamily rental-advertising market for as long as nine years, the [Federal Trade Commission](https://search.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-secures-order-resolving-antitrust-concerns-zillow-redfin-agreement?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com) charged. The FTC sued in September 2025\. Arizona, Connecticut, New York, Virginia and Washington subsequently brought a similar case, and the lawsuits were consolidated. > Regulators characterized the arrangement as an agreement between competitors to eliminate one of them from the market rather than compete for customers. Zillow disputed that characterization and argued that its partnership with Redfin made more rental listings available across more websites and strengthened competition against another major player, CoStar Group, [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-ftc-file-order-resolving-litigation-against-zillow-redfin-2026-08-24/?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com) reported. ## What happened to prices? The most interesting number for consumers may be what allegedly happened after Redfin stopped competing. An expert for the FTC and states estimated that Zillow customers subsequently paid an average of **14.5% more per listing**, [Reuters reported](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-ftc-file-order-resolving-litigation-against-zillow-redfin-2026-08-24/?ref=consumernews.ai). Some property managers stopped purchasing online listings altogether. Those advertising charges are paid by landlords and property managers rather than renters directly. But advertising and marketing expenses are part of the cost of operating rental properties. In a competitive market, higher operating costs can eventually contribute to higher rents and fees, although there is no simple one-to-one relationship between listing prices and what a tenant ultimately pays. There is another potential cost to renters: reduced competition can give listing platforms less incentive to improve search tools, listing quality, fraud prevention and other services. New York Attorney General Letitia James [said](https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2026/attorney-general-james-stops-illegal-scheme-eliminate-competition-between-zillow?ref=consumernews.ai) the arrangement threatened to produce "higher prices, lower-quality rental advertising, and fewer choices" for renters and property managers. ## Regulators aren't merely canceling the deal What's unusual about the settlement is that regulators aren't simply ordering the companies to stop doing something. They're requiring Redfin to become a competitor again. Within six months after the order becomes final, Redfin must restart its independent rental-advertising business. That means rebuilding the technological infrastructure necessary for property managers to advertise listings across Redfin's rental sites. Redfin must also hire a general manager, sales staff and customer-support employees and advertise the relaunched service. It has made multiyear commitments to remain in the market and invest millions of dollars in growing the operation. Failure to meet the deadlines could subject Redfin to monetary penalties. The order would remain in effect for 10 years. ## Zillow has to help create its new competitor The settlement contains another unusual provision: Zillow must help make it possible for Redfin to rebuild. Zillow will have to provide employee information so Redfin can interview Zillow workers and must waive noncompete, anti-poaching or similar restrictions that could prevent employees from moving to Redfin. Zillow also will be prohibited from interfering with Redfin's recruiting efforts. Customers get an escape hatch as well. For nine months after Redfin relaunches its advertising business, Zillow must allow certain property-listing customers locked into longer-term contracts to renegotiate those agreements without cost or penalty so they can consider switching to Redfin. Zillow will be required to tell eligible customers about that option. ## Redfin won't completely sever ties with Zillow The settlement doesn't eliminate the companies' relationship altogether. Redfin can continue carrying Zillow-supplied rental listings, and the companies say their syndication partnership can continue through at least 2030. But Redfin will once again be allowed — and required — to solicit its own advertising customers and display their listings alongside Zillow's. That distinction explains why the parties describe Monday's agreement somewhat differently. The FTC says it has dismantled the anticompetitive portions of the deal and restored Redfin as an independent competitor. Zillow emphasizes that its broader partnership with Redfin survives and has said the original arrangement benefited consumers by putting more rental listings before more people. Redfin similarly [described](https://www.inman.com/2026/08/24/zillow-redfin-ftc-antitrust-resolution/?ref=consumernews.ai) the settlement as allowing it to maintain the Zillow relationship while rebuilding its own standalone rentals business. ## Why renters should care about competition between listing sites Apartment-search websites look free to renters, which can make antitrust battles over them seem remote. They aren't. The business model generally works because landlords and property managers pay to advertise apartments or obtain greater visibility for their listings. When several large platforms compete for that business, property managers can shop among them. Platforms have incentives to lower prices, attract more renters, improve their technology and offer better services. When competitors disappear, those pressures weaken. That's why the FTC describes rental-listing services as part of the housing market rather than merely another corner of online advertising. More than 30% of Americans rent their homes, according to Census data cited by Reuters. For many of them, Zillow, Redfin and similar services have effectively become the [front door to the rental market](https://valawyersweekly.com/2026/08/24/zillow-settles-ftc-claims-redfin-apartment-listings/?ref=consumernews.ai). ## What this means for consumers Nothing changes immediately for someone searching for an apartment this week. The more interesting changes should begin appearing over the next six months as Redfin rebuilds its independent rental business. Renters may eventually see listings on Redfin's sites that aren't simply copies of Zillow listings. Property managers should regain another major company competing for their advertising dollars. And that could ultimately matter to renters. Competition doesn't guarantee lower rents, of course. Housing costs are driven primarily by supply, demand, financing costs, taxes and local market conditions. But competition among the companies controlling how apartments are advertised can affect advertising costs, the number and quality of listings consumers see and how aggressively platforms innovate. The Zillow-Redfin case is therefore a useful reminder of something that's easy to overlook in today's online economy: > **A consumer can see several different websites and still be shopping in a market with very little competition.** ## The bigger picture: competition you can't see The case also illustrates why ownership and business relationships behind consumer websites matter. A renter could visit Zillow, Trulia, HotPads, Redfin, Rent.com and ApartmentGuide.com and reasonably assume six different websites were competing for their attention. In reality, Zillow owns Zillow, Trulia and HotPads. Redfin operates Rent.com and ApartmentGuide.com in addition to its own site. And under the 2025 agreement challenged by regulators, Redfin's sites were displaying Zillow-supplied multifamily listings rather than competing independently for many of them. The storefronts looked different. Behind them, regulators alleged, competition had largely disappeared. The proposed settlement is intended to put some of it back.