The Competition Appeal Tribunal has ordered a court hearing for 2-3 November 2026 in a £1.5bn legal action on behalf of thousands of UK estate agents and new home developers who were allegedly overcharged by Rightmove.
The legal action, led by former Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) panel member Jeremy Newman, claims that Rightmove abused its dominant position in the online property portal market by charging excessive and unfair fees to estate agents that list properties on its online portal.
The hearing in November will determine whether the Tribunal grants a Collective Proceedings Order, certifying the claim and paving the way for it to proceed to full trial.
The Tribunal additionally ordered that Rightmove must file its response to the legal claim by 29 July 2026, and that Mr Newman will file his reply to Rightmove’s response by 25 September 2026.
Total damages claimed are estimated at around £1.5bn. According to Rightmove’s own accounts, its profit margin is around 70%, making it one of the most profitable companies in the FTSE 100.
Estate agents and new home developers that paid subscription fees to Rightmove between 1 April 2020 to 1 April 2026 are invited to get in touch here.
Rightmove defends position after £1.5bn lawsuit wipes £300m off value
Comments (4)
Agents moaning on forums doesn’t change anything.
What actually gets the ball rolling is people putting the hard work in, gathering evidence, challenging it properly and pushing it through the right channels.
Most agents have complained about Rightmove for years, while still paying the bill every month. This case only exists because some people stopped just talking and actually did the work.
And in my view, agents who don’t get behind this shouldn’t morally be first in line to benefit from any outcome. If they’re happy to sit back and let others do the heavy lifting, then they can hardly complain when the 18% increases keep landing.
As a gesture of goodwill, no doubt Rightmove’s settlement proposal will be to “freeze” agents’ fees for 18 months… provided they kindly agree to a new 10-year contract with annual “inflation-linked enhancements” hidden in the small print.
You can already imagine the next stage:
“Premium Premium” listings becoming essential just to appear on page one.
Extra charges for agent branding, featured properties, and even responding to leads.
A loyalty discount that somehow still costs more every year.
And perhaps a heartfelt statement explaining how 70% profit margins are “necessary to continue investing in innovation.”
What’s astonishing is that so many agents have spent years complaining privately while continuing to feed the machine publicly. Now a £1.5bn claim finally puts a spotlight on what many in the industry have been saying for years, when one portal dominates the market, “choice” for agents becomes little more than an illusion.
Will the chickens finally come home to roost? Will the despicable package cost tactics be fully examined. Will the horrendous “charge what they can’t afford” mantra be exposed.
Most importantly will this grotesque monopoly be finally broken up.
In an industry that has always been driven by choice, fee levels and service levels, it’s vital for the consumer and jobs in the industry that this run away train is halted.
If this saves a one office business like ours 20k a year ( that still leaves them 15 k a year !!! ) it will be invested straight in staff. Hard working girls and guys. People that should be seeing that money and not shareholders seeing 70% profits. It’s so so wrong and I hope it results in fairness being restored.
This is the best property news for a very long time. Putting up our fee by 18% this year, when general inflation is around 3% was scandalous. I understand from Costar meetings (Onthemarket) that their profit margin target is 22%, Google and Microsoft are happy with 25-26%, and RM have consistently shown around a 74% profit margin on turnover. CMA were told at professional meetings that RM were taking excessive profits due to their monopoly position more than 10 years ago, just after they had handed out big fines to agents for colluding on a 1.5% Sole Agency Commission at Burnham.