The Competition Appeal Tribunal has delayed its decision on a £1.5 billion legal claim against Rightmove, leaving around 13,000 estate agencies and property businesses in limbo over whether they will be automatically included in the case. The tribunal reserved judgment after a two-day hearing on 2 and 3 November, focusing on whether the collective action should proceed on an opt-out basis or require individual registration.
Rightmove has challenged the opt-out approach, arguing that affected businesses are identifiable and capable of deciding whether to participate. The portal has also proposed a compromise under which businesses that spent more than £1m with Rightmove during the claim period would have to opt in. However, Rightmove has not sought to dismiss the entire claim, which accuses the portal of abusing its dominant market position by charging excessive and unfair subscription fees while restricting competition.
The claim covers fees paid between 1 April 2020 and 1 April 2026. Rightmove denies the allegations, calling them “without merit” and vowing to defend the proceedings vigorously.
Class representative argues opt-out is fairer for smaller businesses
Jeremy Newman, the proposed class representative, countered that requiring thousands of agents to sign up individually would disproportionately burden smaller firms. He noted that Rightmove had not challenged the claim’s validity but instead focused on participation logistics. “Rightmove wants thousands of small and medium-sized businesses to sign up one by one, which they know is costlier, riskier, and more burdensome,” Newman said.
The tribunal reportedly questioned how 13,000 businesses could realistically be contacted and encouraged to join an opt-in action, describing the task as a “significant challenge.” Kieron Beal KC, representing Newman, argued that participation would involve more than just registering interest—businesses could face demands for information, disclosure, and witness evidence. Past collective actions have shown that many potential claimants drop out before completion.
During the hearing, Rightmove accepted that the claims were “coherent,” while the tribunal observed there was “evidence beyond coherence.” These remarks do not confirm the allegations against Rightmove but suggest the tribunal found the case plausible. The company, however, has raised objections to the proposed damages methodology, compound interest calculations, and litigation funding arrangements, questioning the potential return for the funder, Innsworth, and the class representative’s remuneration.
