A Virginia federal judge has fused two major antitrust actions accusing Zillow Group Inc., Zillow Inc., and Redfin Corp. of striking an illicit deal that reshaped the online property-listing universe. The ruling — issued Nov. 26 by U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga — granted the states’ consolidation request with no resistance from the companies, pulling the suits into a single blockbuster proceeding.

The Federal Trade Commission and the attorneys general of New York, Virginia, Arizona, Washington and Connecticut allege that Zillow paid Redfin a staggering $100 million to essentially bow out of direct competition in the high-stakes arena of online multifamily property listings. The FTC fired the first legal shot in September; the states followed quickly with a parallel complaint.

A $100 Million Deal That Allegedly Reshaped an Industry

According to federal regulators, Redfin didn’t just step aside — it allegedly hollowed out its own operations to give Zillow a smoother road. The FTC claims Redfin axed hundreds of workers, handed over confidential advertising data, abandoned multifamily ad contracts and shuttered its own multifamily sales efforts entirely, clearing the way for Zillow to dominate listings involving buildings with 25 or more units.

The agency’s complaint paints the agreement as a maneuver worthy of a courtroom thriller:
“This bargain is an end run around competition,” the FTC wrote, arguing that it violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act and, if viewed as an acquisition, ran afoul of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

Judge Trenga previously paused the states’ case due to the federal government shutdown, but consolidation now puts all claims on a shared track.

Zillow Says Agreement Is a Win for Renters — Not a Scheme

In a Tuesday statement, Zillow fired back, framing the arrangement as a rising tide that lifts all boats — or at least all apartment seekers.

“We consented to consolidation and look forward to demonstrating how our listing syndication with Redfin benefits renters and property managers,” a Zillow spokesperson said, calling the relationship “pro-competitive and pro-consumer.”

The company argues that the partnership expanded access to multifamily listings and connects property managers with more motivated renters, ultimately filling vacancies faster. Zillow insisted it remains “confident in this partnership and the value it provides.”

The New York Attorney General’s Office declined to comment. Representatives for Redfin, the FTC, and the other states did not immediately respond.

Legal Teams Assemble for a Regulatory Showdown

The courtroom roster reads like a who’s-who of antitrust litigators:

• FTC: Allyson M. Maltas; Dennis C. Barghaan Jr. (U.S. Attorney’s Office, E.D. Va.)

• Virginia: Tyler T. Henry

• Arizona: Connor B. Nolan

• New York: Amy E. McFarlane, Elinor R. Hoffmann, Maria L. Di Lauro, Michael D. Schwartz

• Washington: Amy N. L. Hanson, Tyler W. Arnold

• Connecticut: Julian A. Q. Reyes, Nicole A. Demers

On the defense side:

• Zillow: Brendan J. Coffman, Libby J. Weingarten, Beau W. Buffier, Michael S. Sommer (Wilson Sonsini); Donald B. Hoffman, Heather Nyong'o, Matthew Rosenthal, Rathna Ramamurthi, Ryan A. Shores (Cleary Gottlieb).

• Redfin: Daniel J. Richardson, Jeffrey T. Scott, Kyle W. Mach, Sharon L. Nelles (Sullivan & Cromwell).

With both suits now braided into a single legal front, the Zillow Redfin Antitrust combining battle is primed to test the boundaries of competition in the digital housing marketplace — and the outcome could reshape the way America searches for its next home.