Rightmove has come under fire for opposing an attempt to automatically include thousands of estate agents in a £1.5bn legal action over allegedly excessive subscription fees.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has begun hearing arguments in a case that could have major implications for around 13,000 estate agency and property businesses.
At the centre of the dispute is whether agents should automatically form part of the collective action or be forced to sign up individually.
Jeremy Newman, who is leading the claim, argues that Rightmove’s preferred opt-in approach would make it harder for smaller agencies to pursue compensation.
He claims the additional costs and administrative hurdles would deter thousands of businesses from taking part.
The claimants argue that this would benefit Rightmove by reducing the number of potential claimants.
‘That helps only Rightmove’
Newman has accused the portal of seeking an approach that would put compensation beyond the reach of many smaller agencies.
He said: “Any alternative would be a serious obstacle for small and medium-sized businesses, and few (if any) can justify the time, cost and risk of bringing a claim alone, or of joining an opt-in claim.
“The result would be fewer businesses compensated and higher legal costs. That helps only Rightmove.”
The £1.5bn action alleges that Rightmove exploited its dominant position in the UK property portal market to impose excessive and unfair subscription charges.
It also accuses the company of restricting competition.
According to the claimants, Rightmove has not sought to have the action struck out at this stage. Instead, it is challenging the proposed opt-out structure.
That does not mean Rightmove accepts the allegations or that the tribunal has determined their merits.
Rightmove’s 70% profit margins in spotlight
The claimants are using Rightmove’s market dominance and profitability to support their case.
Rightmove has previously reported that its platform accounts for more than 80% of consumer time spent on UK property portals.
Its latest full-year results also showed profit margins of around 70% for the second consecutive year.
Newman argues that these margins reflect the portal’s ability to charge excessive fees without facing sufficient competitive pressure.
However, profitability alone does not establish unlawful conduct.
Thousands of agents await crucial ruling
The tribunal is considering whether the collective action should proceed and, if so, whether eligible businesses should be included automatically.
An opt-out ruling would bring qualifying agencies into the proceedings without requiring them to register individually.
Under Rightmove’s preferred opt-in approach, each business would have to take steps to join.
The proposed action covers estate agents and new home developers that paid Rightmove subscription fees between 1 April 2020 and 1 April 2026.
Today’s hearing will not determine whether Rightmove broke competition law or whether agents are entitled to compensation.
But the outcome could shape how many businesses ultimately participate in the £1.5bn action.
Comments (2)
My understanding is that the tribunal has been told Connells wants to opt out. That’s their choice. Connells speaks for its own branches. Independent agents are entitled to make their own decision about pursuing compensation.
My concern is that independents paying full price may effectively be subsidising the deals available to large chains. A discount of up to 90% has been suggested, although I haven’t seen evidence that Connells receives that rate. At 90% off, a chain would pay just 10p for every £1 an independent pays for the same service. I want to see what agents of different sizes actually paid.
It looks encouraging. The main debate so far is whether agents should have to opt in. If it’s opt-in and an agent doesn’t want to pursue potential compensation that could run into tens of thousands of pounds, they can simply choose not to sign up. If it’s opt-out, they can choose to leave.