Rightmove's £1.5bn Fee Reckoning: What the CAT Certification Ruling Means for 13,000 Agents

The Procedural Gate That Could Move Markets

The Competition Appeal Tribunal finished hearing arguments on 3 November in Newman v Rightmove PLC and Rightmove Group Limited (Case 1771/7/7/26), a certification hearing that will determine whether a £1.5bn collective action proceeds as opt-out or opt-in, and therefore whether its roughly 13,000 eligible estate agency and property businesses are automatically enrolled or must register individually. No ruling has yet been issued; the CAT is expected to deliver its decision in due course.

The distinction matters enormously in practice. An opt-out Collective Proceedings Order means any UK estate agent or new home developer that paid Rightmove subscription fees between 1 April 2020 and 1 April 2026 is part of the action unless they actively withdraw. An opt-in structure requires each business to register, raising costs and, claimants argue, suppressing participation among smaller independents who fear commercial retaliation.

What the Claimants Are Arguing

The action is led by Jeremy Newman, a former Competition and Markets Authority panel member, who alleges that Rightmove exploited its dominant position in the UK online property portal market to impose excessive and unfair subscription fees on agents. The case is funded by Innsworth Capital, the litigation arm of Elliott Management, with legal work handled by Scott+Scott UK LLP and economic analysis by Kairos Economics.

Newman's team is pushing hard for opt-out certification, citing a run of 2026 CAT cases, including Stasi v Microsoft, Ennis v Apple and Brook v Google, where the tribunal rejected defendants' requests that proceedings be conducted on an opt-in basis. The claimants' argument is blunt: an opt-in model concentrates legal costs and deters smaller agencies from participating, an outcome that benefits only Rightmove.

Today's hearing addresses procedure, not substance. The CAT has not ruled on whether Rightmove breached competition law or whether agents are owed compensation.

Rightmove's Defence: Procedure and Principle

Rightmove did not oppose certification itself at the hearing, but its central objection concerns the opt-out mechanism. The portal is pushing for businesses to register individually rather than being enrolled automatically, and has also proposed a hybrid arrangement as a fallback. Rightmove insists the underlying £1.5bn claim is without merit and says it will defend the proceedings vigorously.

The portal has also raised procedural challenges around the litigation funder's influence over proceedings, Newman's proposed remuneration, and cost-cover arrangements if the claim fails.

One data point sits in the background, undisputed by either side. Rightmove's latest full-year accounts show a profit margin of approximately 70%, one of the highest in the FTSE 100, on revenues drawn almost entirely from subscription fees charged to the agents now pursuing the claim. For the claimants, that figure is exhibit one. For Rightmove, the same number is evidence of a commercially excellent business that delivers audience and lead volume competitors have never matched.

Regional Fee Concentration: The Independent Agent Problem

The fee burden is not evenly distributed. Agents in lower-value markets, including Liverpool, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Manchester and Birmingham, have been paying around 9% of their sales commissions to Rightmove, compared with roughly 2.9% for London agents whose higher transaction values dilute the cost. Outside the capital, the maths gets uncomfortable quickly, particularly for single-branch independents with limited ability to absorb annual price increases.

One publicly disclosed figure adds texture: Rightmove's fees were estimated to account for up to 13.5% of some agents' total sales commission, cited in earlier Property Industry Eye analysis. If the claim proceeds and succeeds, the compensable window covers six years of those increases.

What PropTech Brands Are Watching

This is not only a legal story. PropTech brands competing in the agent-software and CRM space have a direct commercial interest in the outcome. A successful collective action returning cash to agents would, in principle, free up budget for technology investment. AIBD analysis of IPO trademark data shows UK Class 37 filings (construction and repair services, often used as a proxy for property-services brand activity) totalled just 702 in 2026-Q4, down 62% on the prior period, suggesting broad retrenchment in brand launches across the property-services supply chain at precisely the moment portal costs are under judicial scrutiny. Source: AIBD analysis of IPO (TMD) data, as of 2026-11.

The correlation is not causal, but it is suggestive. Agents paying an ever-larger share of commission to portals have less margin to experiment with new PropTech subscriptions, which in turn depresses the launch activity that trademark filings tend to preview.

What Comes Next

If the CAT grants a Collective Proceedings Order on an opt-out basis, the case proceeds toward a full substantive trial, most likely in 2027. Without certification, the claim cannot proceed in its current form.

For the 13,000 businesses potentially in the class, the immediate task is to understand the window. The proposed claim covers fees paid between 1 April 2020 and 1 April 2026, a six-year period spanning the pandemic-era market, the stamp duty holiday, and the subsequent correction. That is a lot of subscriptions, and a lot of annual price increases, to put under economic analysis.

Portal dominance is structural, not accidental. Rightmove's moat is built on the same network effects that make it nearly impossible for agents to walk away: sellers want their property where buyers look, and buyers look where the listings are. That circularity has held for two decades. Whether it has crossed the legal threshold from "commercially brilliant" into "abuse of dominance" is now a question for judges, not the market.