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.