Minor? Usually.
Random? Not at all. A minor annoyance like a cracked driveway ($1,500 to fix) is also likely to be associated with older kitchen appliances, faulty water pressure, deteriorating deck; poorly seated windows, etc. And then, buying that house for what the algo tells you -- or even algo minus 3% -- isn't likely to be a happy choice. Its fair market price may be algo minus 10% or worse.
Also worth bearing in mind, the Realtor community is not going to make life easy for Zillow. Once it's known that Zillow is loading up on clunkers, buyers' agents are likely to tell their customers: There's a Zillow house on the market, too. It's probably got problems. I'd demand a full inspection and some indemnities if I were you.
Common flaw of market disruptors. They assume that the existing players will remain neutral and indifferent to their arrival. The real world tends to be much tougher.
The opinion is famous not just for its unusual fact pattern but also because the Judge clearly had quite a lot of fun working in other-worldly puns and references while writing it.
This seems to be the opinion: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=329068483649083...
None of these things are necessarily unusual in most neighborhoods. All at once is irritating to most people - but hard to objectively prove are a true nuisance in a legal sense.
This is the real problem.
Even if they have the historical data for that exact house/unit, it won't help them in cases such as:
* That nice view of the woods out the window is now blocked by a massive radio antenna that was just built there
* The river running through the back yard is now heavily polluted by something up-stream
* The new neighbor across the street is a huge nuisance and says they will never move
* The house just had a mass-murder event in it
Just because something is now cheaper than "comps" at price/sq ft and other metrics doesn't mean it's comparable.