Rightmove has hit back at a £1.5bn legal claim over its subscription fees, insisting the allegations are “without merit” as it fights proposals to automatically include thousands of estate agents in the action.
The property portal has confirmed that it wants the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) to reject the proposed opt-out approach, which would automatically include eligible businesses unless they chose to withdraw.
Instead, Rightmove argues that agents should actively sign up if they want to participate in the proceedings.
The company has also proposed a compromise that would require larger businesses to opt in, while potentially allowing smaller agencies to participate automatically.
The arguments form part of a two-day certification hearing that began today (2 November), with around 13,000 estate agency and property businesses potentially affected.
Rightmove rejects allegations of excessive fees
The £1.5bn collective action, led by proposed class representative Jeremy Newman, alleges that Rightmove abused its dominant market position by charging excessive and unfair subscription fees.
The claim also includes allegations that the portal restricted competition.
Rightmove strongly disputes the allegations.
A spokesperson told EYE: “Rightmove is confident in the value we provide to our partners and consumers, who are at the core of our business solutions and digital platform.
“As one of the most efficient parts of the housing market, we help people across the UK to move home by bringing buyers, sellers, renters, landlords and agents together.
“Our platform continues to provide a growing range of constantly evolving products and features which facilitate market transparency, liquidity and confidence.
“This claim is without merit, and we will defend it vigorously.”
Rightmove challenges opt-out compensation claim
One of the biggest disputes concerns whether agents should automatically form part of the legal action.
Newman argues that an opt-out structure is essential to give smaller agencies a realistic opportunity to seek compensation.
He has warned that requiring businesses to register individually could deter thousands from participating.
Rightmove takes a different view.
The portal argues that the proposed claimants are identifiable businesses that can be contacted directly and are capable of deciding whether to join the action.
It therefore believes the case should proceed on an opt-in basis, if the tribunal allows it to proceed at all.
Alternatively, Rightmove has proposed a hybrid arrangement.
Under that approach, businesses that spent more than £1m with Rightmove during the claim period would have to opt in.
Rightmove argues that these larger businesses have the resources and experience to make their own decisions about participating.
The proposed claim covers subscription fees paid between 1 April 2020 and 1 April 2026.
Funding arrangements also under fire
Rightmove is also challenging several other aspects of the proposed collective action.
These include the claimants’ approach to allegations of exclusionary conduct and the methodology for calculating compound interest.
The portal argues that Newman has not sufficiently explained the exclusionary abuse allegation or established how any additional damages would be calculated.
It has also questioned whether the proposed methodology for compound interest is sufficiently credible.
Rightmove has raised concerns about the litigation funding arrangements.
These include the potential return available to funder Innsworth, which Rightmove says could reach ten times its investment.
The company has also questioned the funder’s influence over the proceedings, Newman’s proposed remuneration and arrangements to cover Rightmove’s legal costs if the claim fails.
These are arguments Rightmove is putting before the tribunal, rather than findings against the claimants.
What happens next?
The certification hearing will determine whether the proposed collective action can proceed and, if so, on what basis.
The tribunal must also decide whether Newman is suitable to represent the proposed claimant group.
Crucially, the hearing will not establish whether Rightmove breached competition law or whether agents are entitled to compensation.
Those questions would arise at a later stage if the case proceeds.
The hearing began at 10.30am yesterday, with today reserved for further arguments if required.
The tribunal is not expected to deliver an immediate ruling.
A written decision could follow within four weeks, although the timetable remains at the tribunal’s discretion.
For thousands of agents who paid Rightmove subscription fees during the six-year claim period, the ruling could determine whether they become part of the action automatically or must take steps to join.
Rightmove, meanwhile, maintains that the underlying £1.5bn claim has no merit and says it will continue to defend the proceedings.
