SEATTLE – One dozen current and former loan officers and real estate agents divulged inside information about Zillow Inc.’s allegedly “deceptive” practices and policies in an amended Nov. 19 lawsuit accusing Zillow of conspiring with real estate brokerage firms, according to Hagens Berman attorneys representing homebuyers.
The filing, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, reveals new, deeper details into Zillow’s alleged steering practices, as well as internal information including Zillow’s incentivizing of agents to “burn and churn” through clients, to cherry-pick borrowers to intentionally conceal loan officers’ inexperience.
“Twelve current and former agents and loan officers have bravely stepped forward to help our clients build a comprehensive case against Zillow, and with their added information, we believe this lawsuit has the potential to bring major changes to Zillow’s policies and practices,” said Steve Berman, managing partner and co-founder of Hagens Berman.
The same firm recently secured more than $1 billion in settlements regarding real estate brokerage fees.
The lawsuit also details claims related to Zillow’s alleged practice of steering, which involves pushing loan applicants to apply for more costly loans that do not serve their best interests, corroborated by anonymous witnesses from inside Zillow’s operations. Attorneys say this, along with Zillow’s other allegedly anticompetitive practices in collusion with real estate brokerages – Works Industries LLC, GK Properties, the Frano Team and
– amounts to violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Along with Zillow Inc., other subsidiaries of the company that are named in the lawsuit include Zillow Group, Inc., Zillow Homes Inc., Zillow Listing Services Inc. and Zillow Home Loans, LLC.
The complaint outlines experiences of named plaintiffs from across the country including, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia and Washington.
One of the plaintiffs is Rebecca Brucaliere of Norwalk. She claims on Dec. 13, 2023, she purchased a home in Norwalk using a Zillow agent, H.D. (H.D. is identified as a “Top Agent on Zillow” on the Zillow website). Prior to her purchase, Brucaliere and her husband were browsing Zillow.com to look for houses, and identified a house that interested them.
She clicked on the “Request a Tour” button, believing she was contacting the seller’s agent. When she first met H.D. in person, H.D. did not initially disclose that they were a buyer’s agent, but instead insisted that Brucaliere sign a touring agreement. After she signed, H.D. told her that Zillow assigned her to H.D., and that H.D. would represent her going forward.
Brucaliere did not feel she had any other practical option but to use H.D. as the buyer’s agent. During the buying process, H.D. urged her repeatedly to use Zillow Home Loans, but Brucaliere declined because she wanted to use USAA. Although Brucaliere was a first-time home buyer, H.D. never told her about first-time homebuyer assistance programs, which Brucaliere ultimately obtained through USAA, a regulated agency of the federal government.
Zillow has not issued a response to the amended lawsuit but had earlier commented on a separate September 2025 lawsuit with similar allegations, calling the proposed class action a “misrepresentation of how the company operates” and stating it would defend against it.”
The lawsuit states that since Hagens Berman’s initial complaint was filed, 12 confidential witnesses have stepped forward and provided ”details that expose just how deliberate and destructive Zillow’s policies are,” including:
- To avoid putting anything in writing, Zillow personnel allegedly fly to real estate offices to instruct Zillow Flex agents in person on the need to meet Zillow Home Loan (ZHL) quotas.
- The lawsuit alleges that Zillow loan officers frequently misrepresent or omit important details about borrowers’ true closing costs, leading buyers to pay excessive costs or lose the house.
- Based on the hidden Zillow fees, Zillow Flex agents are allegedly incentivized to “burn and churn” through clients, at their clients’ expense.
- Similarly, the lawsuit alleges ZHL “cherry-picks” only the most qualified borrowers, because ZHL loan officers are inexperienced, underpaid and incentivized to churn as many borrowers as possible without any regard for clients’ interests.
- According to the lawsuit, many Zillow Flex agents know virtually nothing about the real estate process, or the neighborhoods in which they are showing homes, yet these same agents are falsely promoted as a “Top Agent” on Zillow based solely on their participation in the Zillow Flex program.
- The lawsuit accuses Zillow of implementing a requirement that Flex agents use Zillow’s “Follow-Up Boss,” which allows Zillow to eavesdrop on communications between the agent and the buyer, violating the agent’s duty of confidentiality.
- Zillow allegedly uses the “Follow-Up Boss” to “catch” Flex agents who may recommend other loan providers to their clients.
According to the firm, new information from Zillow-affiliated agents and loan officers alleges the real estate giant is illegally forcing agents to refer customers to Zillow Home Loans, in violation of their fiduciary duty as agents, and in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The lawsuit details Zillow’s performance standards for agents, which expressly tie Zillow Home Loans referrals into the company’s “gateway to growth” laid out to its employees.
“Zillow is not even being coy about what its policy is, and agents are taking note – with many agents speaking out about their concerns about the legality of this policy,” the lawsuit states, citing remarks from real estate commentator and podcaster, Jared James.
“Zillow’s practices and policies in the real estate industry are not simply indifferent to the agents’ duties to protect their clients’ interests; Zillow actively schemes to subvert them,” the lawsuit states. “Zillow’s goal is simple: to monetize every step of the home buying process — even if illegally — and to encourage, incentivize, and ultimately coerce agents into violating their fiduciary duties by disregarding their clients’ interests.”
