Rightmove's Reality

2–3 November 2026 at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has the feel of a genuine industry hinge-point: not another round of portal posturing, not another “we’ve listened to agents” press release, but an actual courtroom test of whether Rightmove’s pricing behaviour crosses the legal line from “commercially brilliant” into “abuse of dominance”.

Importantly, November isn’t the trial. It’s the certification hearing - the moment the CAT decides whether this thing is allowed to proceed as an opt-out collective action via a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO). It sounds dull and procedural – but it’s not that by any stretch. Certification is where weak claims quietly die and serious ones get a motorway built in front of them.

The claim itself is as punchy as they come: £1.5bn, covering subscription fees allegedly excessive and unfair between April 2020 and April 2026, brought on behalf of thousands of estate agents and new homes developers. The framing matters. This isn’t about whether Rightmove is “a bit expensive” or whether agents “feel squeezed”. It’s a competition law argument: dominance plus pricing power plus conduct that the law says you’re not allowed to get away with when you’re effectively the toll booth on the only bridge.

The cast list also matters. Jeremy Newman isn’t being pitched as a wronged agent with an axe to grind; he’s being presented as a numbers-and-governance man who’s looked at the economics and concluded something unlawful is going on. Backing and execution are equally telling: Innsworth funding it, Scott+Scott UK running it, in a forum (the CAT) that is materially more transparent than your typical civil bunfight. That transparency is the quiet terror here for Rightmove - because the argument won’t be confined to private correspondence and off-the-record briefings. Public versions of submissions land on the register - redacted where genuinely commercially sensitive, but the arguments themselves become readable. Journalists, competitors, investors and - yes - you can follow it.".

The timetable set out is exactly why this won’t drift away over summer. Rightmove’s full defence, due 29 July, is the first proper reveal. Predictable themes a-plenty, without doubt: “we deliver the biggest audience”, “agents choose to subscribe”, “the product is continually improved”. All arguable, but the legal question is whether any of that justifies the level of pricing and the way it has been imposed when the market is, in practice, close to captive. “Voluntary” is a slippery word when the alternative is turning up to a valuation without being on the place the vendor already checks every night.

Then Newman’s reply by 25 September tees up the November show. By the time the hearing starts, most of the substance will already be in the public domain; the hearing is where it’s stress-tested, out loud, with silks and a panel that has seen every flavour of competition claim going.

The financial context is the petrol on this bonfire. Rightmove’s margin profile, its shareholder returns, buybacks, dividends - all perfectly legal in themselves - are the kind of numbers that look glorious in an investor deck and rather less cuddly when someone is arguing “these fees weren’t necessary for innovation or service delivery; they were extraction made possible by market power”. When a business is operating at those margins, the burden of persuasion shifts: you can’t simply point at “value” and expect the room to nod along.

For agents and portals watching, the practical takeaway is simple. If you paid during the window, you’re likely in unless you opt out. But the strategic takeaway is bigger: this case, if certified, changes the negotiating atmosphere even before a trial ever arrives. It introduces a new stakeholder into portal pricing - the Tribunal - and Rightmove has never had to sell its value proposition in that room before.

So yes: come down for court on November 2nd, stay for EA Masters on 3rd, compare notes in the corridor. We’ve had years of agents muttering about the invoice. November is when someone finally asks, in public, whether the level of charge was lawful.