Supreme Court declines REX-Zillow case, ending lengthy fight
Lower courts had ruled that Zillow and the National Association of Realtors did not conspire to conceal non-MLS listings. Those rulings will now stand.
The Supreme Court has declined to review REX's antitrust case against Zillow and the National Association of Realtors, effectively ending a years-long legal battle over listings.
The decision leaves intact a lower court ruling that found Zillow and NAR did not conspire to conceal non-MLS listings on Zillow's platform. REX, a now-defunct low-fee brokerage, had argued that NAR's "no-commingling rule" — which required MLS listings to be displayed separately from non-MLS listings — unfairly reduced traffic to its listings.
Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the rule was optional and that Zillow acted independently in redesigning its website to comply.
NAR decided to do away with the commingling restriction during its annual gathering in Washington, D.C., this past June.
What Zillow had to say: "We're pleased this matter has reached the conclusion we expected and that the court at every level has affirmed Zillow's position," a Zillow spokesperson said in a statement. "Zillow was founded on increasing transparency in real estate and we have a long history of advocating for practices and launching products that do just that. This decision reinforces our long-standing commitment to transparency, innovation and prioritizing consumers."
What NAR had to say: "As we have said from day one, NAR's optional no-commingling rule was not an antitrust violation. While the optional rule is no longer in effect, NAR remains committed to protecting the benefits MLSs provide agents, consumers, and the industry," an NAR spokesperson said. "Local MLSs play a key role in fostering transparent, competitive, and fair housing markets by delivering consumers the most accurate and up-to-date information on home listings."
How we got here: REX filed suit in 2021, claiming Zillow's adoption of the separate-tab display for non-MLS listings — which the search portal began phasing out in April — amounted to deceptive and anticompetitive behavior. After losing at trial in 2023, REX appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the lower court's ruling in March 2024.
The brokerage filed a petition for Supreme Court review in September, arguing that different appellate courts had taken conflicting approaches to trade association liability when rules are technically "optional."
With the high court declining to hear the case, the Ninth Circuit's ruling stands.
What it means for the industry: The Supreme Court's decision closes the book on REX's challenge, but questions about competition and transparency in real estate remain. The case played out alongside a wave of antitrust scrutiny over industry practices, including commission lawsuits and the Justice Department's ongoing interest in how real estate rules affect consumers and innovation.