Anyone expecting Rightmove to emerge from court last week £1.5bn lighter will have been disappointed.

Anyone expecting it to make the whole thing disappear should probably keep their coat on, too.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has reserved judgment following the 2nd/3rd November hearing. Rightmove has neither been found liable nor cleared; nobody has been awarded compensation.

This was the hearing about whether, and how, the collective action proceeds. The expensive argument before the considerably more expensive argument.

A quick recap: The claim alleges that Rightmove abused a dominant position through excessive and unfair subscription fees and conduct, restricting competition. Those allegations must be proved. Being profitable - even spectacularly, investor-presentations-with-Trumpian-gold-leaf profitable - isn’t itself unlawful.

Rightmove denies wrongdoing and describes the claim as “without merit”. Its latest financial report records potential damages of up to £1.56bn. For the record, it would work out at around £75k per branch if paid out in full – as we shall see, there is a lot of horse-trading to come even if success is achieved, so don’t be sizing up the new office fitout just yet.

The proposed representative is Jeremy Newman, former BDO International chief executive and former Competition and Markets Authority panel member. This is his private collective action, not a CMA prosecution. Scott+Scott UK are his solicitors; Kieron Beal KC leads the barrister team; Kairos Economics supplies economic expertise; and Innsworth Capital funds the case. Innsworth’s return – the amount that would come off the final RM bill should the prosecution be successful – would require Tribunal approval. All of these players are taking a considerable risk in pursuing this case – they believe they have a very strong position and have made clear that they are willing to go the distance.

The Tribunal comprises Ben Tidswell, former global chair of Ashurst, a major international law firm; Rosalind Kellaway, former partner and international co-chair of Evershed’s Sutherland’s Competition and John Davies, formerly chief economist at the UK Competition Commission and head of competition policy at the OECD. This is not a self-nominated trio from the local church group – they know their stuff and they are likely to be unimpressed by ‘but look how many leads we’ve sent, though …’

The defendants are Rightmove PLC and Rightmove Group Limited. Their team involves Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer and Linklaters, no slouches when it comes to punchy litigation; with ‘Competition Silk of the Year 2023’ Rob Williams KC and Ciar McAndrew appearing in the published court record. Two major City firms and specialist competition counsel: the unprecedented threat to its effortlessly-profitable business model meaning the portal is bringing rather more than its tired north-west England account manager to this particular renewal discussion.

So who’s actually in? The filed proposal covers qualifying direct subscribing RM customers based in England, Wales and Scotland – including estate agents, letting agents and new-homes developers – for residential portal services during the six years before filing on 1st April 2026.

This is the first area of conflict between the two parties: Can agents be involved automatically or do they have to sign up individually?

Newman wants opt-out: eligible agencies included automatically unless they explicitly leave. Rightmove wants opt-in: businesses actively enrol. RM’s fallback is a hybrid, requiring businesses spending more than £1m during the claim period to opt in, while potentially allowing smaller businesses automatic inclusion – they want to be seen to be the reasonable, and slightly disappointed, grownup in this stuffy room and this approach has had some success already.

In the 16th July hearing before Tribunal member Tidswell – which presaged last week’s encounter – RM argued that they ought to be able to see which specific agents were supporting the case against it. Newman argued that these agents were terrified of Rightmove’s retaliation should their support be revealed – increased fees over time as punishment beatings, softer treatment of competitor agents who might see advantage in themselves being seen by the portal to actively support its case against the named ones – and, basically, Rightmove won. If Newman were to rely on the supporting evidence of these agents, they would have to be named in court.

Rather than betray confidences and hand Rightmove the list of agents that were actively supporting the case, Newman removed their evidence. It’s not everything – but it’s not nothing either.

At last week’s hearing, RM did not seek strike-out or summary judgment. This was presented by Newman as an indication that the portal accepts it has a case to defend. Instead, Rightmove’s central fight concerned participation, alongside objections involving representation, funding and aspects of the damages’ methodology.

Was last week surprising? Reserving judgment wasn’t. Neither was the opt-in fight.

In Evans v Barclays, the Supreme Court ruled in December 2025 - just after Newman started this whole process almost exactly one year ago, on 13th November 2025 - that there is no automatic preference for opt-out proceedings; where opt-in is practicable, generally proceedings should take that route. Rightmove has a serious legal argument available here.

But Newman has relevant precedents too. In 2026, business claims in Stasi v Microsoft and Brook v Google secured opt-out certification, while Ennis v Apple survived an attempt to remove it. Being a business doesn’t automatically mean individual enrolment is practical – and, as agencies up and down the country will verify, any additional administrative task right now can be a camel’s back-breaking straw.

So what’s the upshot of last week? It feels a bit … damp-squibby, which is precisely where Rightmove would like it to stay.

Proceedings will rumble on. Full opt-out has credible support; hybrid or opt-in remains a material possibility. Predicting the ultimate damages verdict now would be pretty pointless, almost certainly wrong and broadly beside the point.

Rightmove just wants to keep on Rightmoving.

They cannot change course because to do so would be to admit that the course is wrong – which would rather prove Newman’s point. So assuming that the case continues for a long time, that Rightmove will continue to increase its prices aggressively because it can’t be seen to not do so, and that (post-interest-rate-rise) the market remains in its current anaemic state for a while, what should agents do?

Three things:

Haggle. We’re in the ultimate negotiating industry, it’s what we do. Your RM rep deserves a bit of a workout after years of easy wallet-pickings. Get ChatGPT (or Copilot) to look through your inbox and see how many leads you got this year v last year v the years before. It will be less. Pre-empt the annual email from their rep with one of your own suggesting next year’s rate is discounted by that amount.

Spread your risk. Find other places to advertise. Stop talking about Rightmove unless you’re specifically asked about it. Eyeroll about its effectiveness these days to potential vendors and big-up your socials and prospect lists.

Be ready to opt-in if that’s what the Tribunal decides you have to do. Your profits have been taken by a business that achieved predominance as it faked listing numbers and gave huge discounts to your competitors. This fight isn’t just about what compensation you might be able to get back from Rightmove – it’s about what the next big player in the market is allowed to do to you too.

The Tribunal might eventually change the bill. Your business still has to try and pay this month’s – and next year’s.

It’s right that Rightmove has to justify its behaviour on a national stage – make sure they’re also having to justify it in every conversation you have with them in the future.