>If it's not correct, then the sale price will reflect that and Zillow's reputation will take a hit.

Perhaps with that buyer and seller. I believe, though, that Zillow rewrites historical estimates when they get new data. So you can't really see how wrong they were after a sale.

They do have an Excel sheet that indicates their accuracy for each county. Eye opening.

Current accuracy, or full historical accuracy? I am surprised they open that kimono voluntarily.

It's still a price anchor.

If an engineer at Zillow manipulated the Zestimate on a home they were trying to buy or sell, would they succeed in driving the price of the home in the desired direction? I think so.

Clearly real estate agents have the same feeling or they wouldn't be suing.

Mostly because they want to do the manipulating of estimates themselves.

It seems to be a civil matter so far.

The problem is, you'll never get to establish a sale price if the seller thinks his house is worth 100k over market or a buyer thinks the seller is asking 100k over market because that's what they saw on Zillow.

Further, when zillow gets the estimate of a house wrong it costs them nothing, but there are real costs to Zillow's bad estimates to buyers and sellers.

If Zillow gets the estimate wrong, then people will stop using their estimates, costing them in reputation and perhaps dollars down the line.

There are so many sources of info for house value that I don't see how Zillow could single handedly be manipulating a house's sale price. If it's not selling for what the homeowner thinks it's worth, it's probably not worth that much.

> It seems to be a civil matter so far.

A "civil matter" is where the courts—a part of government—apply law—created by government—to non-crimes disputes, often (as in this case) between private parties.

It absolutely does not indicate the absence of government involvement, even if the government isn't a party to the litigation.

The government's not getting involved, oh you mean the fact that a judge is going to be involved?

Civil courts exist to provide monetary damages if damages can be proved to exist. Yes, they can also compel arbitrary behavior as a part of governing body.

This is independent of any stance on Zillow and a state licensing regime. If the plaintiff can convince that the tool is making her lose money, the judge will award her money.

"but that means < cue completely uninformed legal analogy >" yes you can make a career out of litigation, many people have.

It cant just be the plaintiff proving that Zillow's tool makes her lose money, can it? If that argument was true then you could get sued and lose for reporting on facts that put the company in a bad light, like poor hygiene in a restaurant, or for competing with another company with a better product.

you have to also show up and defend yourself.

many summary judgements on flaky arguments are made just because the defendant didn't respond. the judgements are collected from you bank in any jurisdiction that will reciprocate

You're right, I shouldn't have phrased it that way. I meant to say I don't think the government should be involved.

Although, I'm not sure why the plaintiff should be awarded anything, even if Zillow causes her to "lose money". Unless Zillow is doing something specifically to her home estimate, then it's merely offering a differing opinion on what they think the home is worth.

"Eyyy buddy, you wanna buy this car? Classic 1991 Honda Civic, only 100k miles on it, and most of the doors still open. I'll give you a deal, $10 000."

"Yeah, I don't think it's worth that much. A hundred dollars, tops."

"Did you just appraise this car? Oh, you done messed up."

muffled sound of approaching police sirens

EDIT: Hah, didn't see you'd used the exact same analogy elsewhere.

Nonsense. For the judge to award your money to a complainant, they need to have a loss and you need to be legally liable for the loss. The fact that they have a loss is not itself a cause of action. The fact that you caused the loss is still not a cause of action.

> Civil courts exist to provide monetary damages if damages can be proved to exist.

Civil courts exist to provide remedy for non-criminal violation of the law; award of damages (actual, statutory, punitive, or otherwise) is one form of civil remedy, but not the only one available.

this is America. they are not entitled to their opinion. /s I completely agree. don't like their estimate, don't use it.