Join us on LinkedIn Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook Follow us on Instagram
 
  OCTOBER RESEARCH STORE Already a subscriber? LOG IN
AddControlToContainer_DynamicNavigation5

Case Law

Court rules Zillow co-marketing does not violate RESPA

Email A Friend Printer Friendly Version
0 comments
Case Law
Monday, October 8, 2018

First, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ended its investigation into Zillow Group’s co-marketing program.

Now, a federal judge has ruled that Zillow’s co-marketing program complies with RESPA.

The ruling came in a securities fraud class action lawsuit, which was dismissed, Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al. (U.S. District Court, Western Washington District, No. C17-1387).The investors alleged Zillow created the co-marketing program to allow real estate agents to steer prospective home buyers to mortgage lenders, in exchange for the lenders paying a portion of the agent’s advertising costs to Zillow, and that when lenders pay a portion of the agent’s advertising costs to Zillow, they are effectively paying to receive unlawful mortgage referrals.

Zillow argued there was no allegation that Zillow directly provided referrals to lenders, thus there could be no RESPA violation. Judge John C. Coughenour agreed, citing PHH Corp’s case against the CFPB.

“The court need not reach these arguments because plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege any RESPA violations, whether by Zillow or third-party agents and lenders participating in the co-marketing program,” Coughenour said in his ruling. “Plaintiffs support this theory of RESPA liability by citing previous enforcement actions taken by the CFPB. Plaintiffs point to a case from 2015, in which the CFPB levied a $109 million disgorgement order against a mortgage lender that it alleged referred customers to mortgage insurers in exchange for illegal payments. That case involved a so-called ‘tying arrangement,’ wherein a mortgage lender refers its clients to certain mortgage insurance companies, who in turn would purchase reinsurance from the referring lender’s subsidiary.”

The judge also noted that in PHH, the CFPB alleged that the tying arrangement violated RESPA because the lender was referring homebuyers to the mortgage insurers in exchange for its reinsurance subsidiary receiving business.

“In this case, plaintiffs allege Zillow’s co-marketing program creates an analogous type of pay-for-referral arrangement,” he stated in the opinion. “As defendants note, however, the D.C. Circuit (in PHH) invalidated the CFPB’s broad theory of RESPA liability. The D.C. Circuit held that RESPA’s safe harbor allows mortgage lenders to make referrals to third parties on the condition that they purchase services from the lender’s affiliate, so long as the third party receives the services at a ‘reasonable market value.’  The D.C. Circuit concluded that RESPA did not prohibit the tying arrangement at issue because it involved ‘bona fide payments for services and not payments for referrals.’ ”

The judge rejected the investors’ first theory of RESPA liability — that the co-marketing program is per se illegal because it allowed agents to make referrals in exchange for lenders paying a portion of their advertising costs — as neither factually nor legally viable.

“In contrast to the tying-arrangement at issue in PHH Corp., which explicitly involved the referral of mortgage insurance business in exchange for the purchase of re-insurance from the referring business, Zillow’s co-marketing program, based on plaintiffs’ allegations, allows agents and lenders to jointly advertise their services without requiring agents to refer business to lenders,” he wrote. “The amended complaint does not contain particularized facts demonstrating that co-marketing agents were actually providing unlawful referrals to lenders. For example, the amended complaint does not contain any allegations that a specific co-marketing agent referred mortgage business to a specific lender in exchange for paying its advertising costs to Zillow.

“But even if the court draws an inference that co-marketing agents were making mortgage referrals, such referrals would fall under the Section 8(c) safe harbor because lenders received advertising services in exchange for paying a portion of their agent’s advertising costs. Therefore, the court rejects plaintiffs’ theory that the co-marketing program, and by extension Zillow, violated RESPA by allowing lenders to pay a portion of agent’s advertising costs. “

The judge also rejected the shareholders’ theory that Zillow’s co-marketing program facilitated RESPA violations by allowing lenders to pay more than fair market value for the advertising services they received from Zillow.

“While plaintiffs assert that a few participating lenders believed 31% of an agent’s advertising spend represented the maximum amount a co-marketing lender should spend, they have not alleged that any specific lenders were paying above that amount or, if they were, that such lender considered the amount to be above fair market value,” he wrote.

 

Reactions

RESPRO President and Executive Director Ken Trepeta said the decision is not surprising. 

“With the bureau dropping its own investigation into the matter, it is hard to argue that Zillow violated RESPA without providing additional proof that Zillow may have and convincing a judge that the bureau was wrong to drop its investigation,” Trepeta told RESPA News.

Phil Schulman, a partner at Mayer Brown, the Washington, D.C. firm that represented Zillow before the CFPB, agreed.

“The law suit that was dismissed in Washington was a shareholders suit. The fact is, that co-marketing if done properly complies with RESPA,” Schulman told RESPA News. “The burden is on the real estate agent and loan officer to assure that costs are shared based upon each party’s prominence in the ad and access to the electronic leads.”  The CFPB had issued Zillow a Notice and Opportunity to Respond (NORA) letter in February 2017. The letter notified the company that the bureau’s Office of Enforcement was considering whether to recommend legal action against Zillow for allegedly violating Section 8 of RESPA and Section 1026 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).

That bureau’s investigation led many compliance experts to question whether real estate agents could structure deals with lenders and loan officers to pay for most or all of the advertising costs associated with leads it received from Zillow.

“Co-marketing was always likely legal under RESPA if best practices were followed,” Trepeta said. “The argument against Zillow was that co-marketing may have exceeded best practices but the bureau and the court appear to feel differently. As far as affiliates go, Zillow is essentially an advertising platform in this case. In that role, it provides the platform for mortgage, title, or other professionals to co-market with real estate agents. So the way AfBA partners would participate, they would co-market with affiliate real estate agents following best practices.”

Schulman said the same rules apply on AfBAs engaging in co-marketing.

“The real estate broker that owns an interest in a mortgage company can co-market on a third-party Internet site with that lender, so long as each party pays its fair share for the advertising space,” Schulman said. “That’s true whether the lender is affiliated or unaffiliated with the broker.”

Today's other top stories
Borrower claims several servicers violated RESPA concerning her loan modification
Housing Affordability Act would raise FHA loan limit
House committee votes to slash CFPB funding
HUD provides $1.8M to support housing for those aging out of foster care
Mortgage credit availability plateaus


COMMENT BOX DISCLAIMER:
October Research is not responsible for the comments posted on its websites by readers. We will do our best to remove comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments.
Comments:

Be the first to leave a comment.

Leave your comment
Please enter a comment.
CAPTCHA Validation
CAPTCHA
Code:
Please enter the word displayed in the image above. Please enter the word displayed in the image above.
: 
Please enter your name.
: 
Please enter your email address.
This field must contain a valid email address.
Your Email is for reporting purposes only. It will NOT be displayed.
Popularity:
This article has been viewed 7168 times.

Monthly Newsletter

RESPA News Monthly
May 2025

Cover Story:

CFPB asks to vacate settlement with Townstone, citing misconduct by CFPB


News by Topic   News by Edition   In-depth Reports   Events   Subscribe
All Rise
Case Law
Enforcement Update
Industry News
Legislation
Regulatory News
The Week in Washington
The TRID Journey
TILA News
 
 
RESPA News Monthly
March 2025
RESPA News Monthly
April 2025
RESPA News Monthly
May 2025
Archives
 
2025 State of the Industry
The ABCs of RESPA
Fair Lending
Mortgage Technology
Real Estate Compliance Outlook
Archives
 
 
National Settlement Services Summit (NS3)
Women's Leadership Summit (WLS)
Webinars
 
Subscriptions
Free Email Updates
Try a Free Edition
Library       RESPA Defined   About   Other Publications
NAR Settlement Resources
Affiliated Compliance
Blog - Tuesdays with Mary
Case Law
CFPB Guidance Documents
Enforcement Documents
Federal and State Legislation
Federal Register Notices
HUD's FAQ's - General
HUD's RESPA final rule FAQs
 
Keys to Real Estate Podcast
Model Disclosure Forms
Other Guidance Documents
Position Papers
Proposed Disclosure Forms
Proposed Rules and Regulations
Settlement Agreements
Statements of Policy
Studies and Proposals
 
Timeline of revisions
Disclosure requirements
Prohibited practices
RESPA enforcement
Dodd-Frank Amendments
Current Issues
The RESPA Statute
 
RESPA News
Contact / Editors
Advertise
Request a Media Kit
Social Media
Are You An Expert?
Subscriber Agreement
 
The Title Report
The Legal Description
Valuation Review
Dodd Frank Upate
Copyright © 2005-2025 RESPA News
An October Research, LLC publication
3046 Brecksville Road, Suite D, Richfield, OH 44286
(330) 659-6101, All Rights Reserved
www.respanews.com | Privacy Policy
VISIT OUR OTHER WEBSITES
> Dodd Frank Update
> The Legal Description
> The Title Report
> Valuation Review
> NS3 The Summit
> Women's Leadership Summit
> October Research, LLC
> The October Store


Loading... Loading...
12 USC Section 2605 or Section 6 is titled Servicing of mortgage loans and administration of escrow accounts. It pertains to qualified written requests, notices of transfer of servicing and the administration of escrow accounts.
An arrangement that involves a person who is in a position to refer business as part of a real estate settlement service and who has an interest in a settlement services provider.

In the arrangement, the person, who has either an affiliate relationship with or a direct or beneficial ownership interest of more than one percent in a settlement services provider, directly or indirectly refers business to that provider or influences a consumer to select that provider.
An arrangement that involves a person who is in a position to refer business as part of a real estate settlement service and who has an interest in a settlement services provider.

In the arrangement, the person, who has either an affiliate relationship with or a direct or beneficial ownership interest of more than one percent in a settlement services provider, directly or indirectly refers business to that provider or influences a consumer to select that provider.
A mortgage disclosure that lists all estimated charges and fees associated with your loan. In addition to fees and charges, it will list your loan amount, mortgage rate, loan term and estimated monthly payment. Your escrows due at closing for insurance and taxes will also be outlined. Mortgage lenders are legally required to provide a GFE within three days of receiving your application.
A mortgage disclosure that lists all estimated charges and fees associated with your loan. In addition to fees and charges, it will list your loan amount, mortgage rate, loan term and estimated monthly payment. Your escrows due at closing for insurance and taxes will also be outlined. Mortgage lenders are legally required to provide a GFE within three days of receiving your application.
Under RESPA Section 2605(e)(1)(B), a qualified written request is a written correspondence that includes: 1) the name and account of the borrower, or has enough information to allow the servicer identify that information; and 2) a statement of the reasons for the belief of the borrower that the account is in error or provides sufficient detail to the servicer regarding other information sought by the borrower.

A QWR cannot be written on a payment coupon or other payment medium supplied by the servicer.
Under RESPA Section 2605(e)(1)(B), a qualified written request is a written correspondence that includes: 1) the name and account of the borrower, or has enough information to allow the servicer identify that information; and 2) a statement of the reasons for the belief of the borrower that the account is in error or provides sufficient detail to the servicer regarding other information sought by the borrower.

A QWR cannot be written on a payment coupon or other payment medium supplied by the servicer.
12 USC Section 2609 or Section 10 is titled Limitation on requirement of advance deposits in escrow accounts. It governs escrow accounts including notifications and statements to borrowers. Section 10 also sets out penalties for those who violate the section.
RESPA Section 3 provides that a thing of value includes any payment, advance, funds, loan, service or other consideration

Regulation X says thing of value includes: monies, things, discounts, salaries, commissions, fees, duplicate payments of a charge, stock, dividends, distributions of partnership profits, franchise royalties, credits representing monies that may be paid at a future date, the opportunity to participate in a money-making program, retained or increased earnings, increased equity in a parent or subsidiary entity, special bank deposits or accounts, special or unusual banking terms, services of all types at special or free rates, sales or rentals at special prices or rates, lease or rental payments based in whole or in part on the amount of business referred, trips and payment of another person’s expenses or reduction in credit against an existing obligation.
A form used by a settlement or closing agent itemizing all charges imposed on a borrower and seller in a real estate transaction. This form represents the closing transaction and provides each party with a complete list of incoming and outgoing funds. RESPA requires the HUD-1 to be used as the standard real estate settlement form in all transactions in the U.S. involving federally related mortgage loans.
Featuring:
  • Delivery 3X a week plus breaking news as it happens
  • Comprehensive title insurance industry news
  • Recent acquisitions, mergers, real estate stats
  • Exclusive in-depth coverage of the industry's hottest stories
Featuring:
  • Delivery 2X a week plus breaking news as it happens
  • Comprehensive Dodd-Frank coverage
  • The latest information from the CFPB
  • Full coverage of Congressional hearings
  • Updates on all agency actions
  • Analysis of controversial provisions
  • Release of newest studies and reports
Sign up today and...
  • Be one of the first to know where NS3 is being held
  • Learn about NS3 speakers and sessions
  • Save on registration with Super-Early Bird rates
  • Discover the networking opportunities NS3 offers
  • Find out if CE credits will be offered for your area
  • And much more
Featuring:
  • Delivery 2X a week plus breaking news as it happens
  • Preview the latest RESPAnews.com Top Story
  • RESPA related headline news
  • Quote of the Week
Featuring:
  • Delivery 2X a week plus breaking news as it happens
  • Legal, regulatory and legislative information impacting the settlement services industry
  • News from HUD, Congress, state legislatures and other regulatory agencies
  • Follow the lobbying efforts of all the major national real estate services organizations.
Featuring:
  • Delivery 2X a week plus breaking news as it happens
  • The industry's only full-time newsroom
  • Relevant, up-to-date appraisal industry news
  • Covering the hottest stories and industry trends
NEWS BY TOPIC
NEWS BY EDITION
IN-DEPTH REPORTS
EVENTS
LIBRARY
FREE EMAIL UPDATES
ABOUT
SUBSCRIBE
All Rise
Case Law
Conference Coverage
Enforcement Update
Industry News
Legislation
Regulatory News
This Week in Washington
The TRID Journey
TILA News
Current Edition
April 2025
March 2025
February 2025
Archives
2025 State of the Industry
Real Estate Compliance Outlook
The ABCs of RESPA
Fair Lending
Mortgage Technology
Best Practices
Archives
National Settlement
Services Summit (NS3)
Women's Leadership
Summit (WLS)
Webinars
Evolving Realtor Relationships
2025 Economic Outlook Series
CFPB's Shake-Up & Its Impact
Artificial Intelligence for Title
Industry and Regulatory Outlook
RESPA Updates You Need to Know
Evolving Consumer Relationships
Strategies post-NAR settlement
Excess Equity
Securing Your Cyber Network
2024 Economic Forecast Series
Webinar Archives
Cyber Solutions Showcase
NAR Settlement Resources
Keys to Real Estate Podcast
Blog - Tuesdays with Mary
Executive Interview Series
eClosing Solutions Showcase
RESPA DEFINED
Affiliated Compliance
Case Law
Disclosure Forms
Enforcement
Federal and State Legislation
Guidance Documents
HUD's FAQ's - General
HUD's RESPA final rule FAQs
In-Depth Reports
Position Papers and Studies
Rules and Regulations
Timeline of revisions
Disclosure requirements
Prohibited practices
RESPA enforcement
Dodd-Frank Amendments
RESPA Glossary
Current Issues
The RESPA Statute
Model Disclosure Forms
Proposed Disclosure Forms
Enforcement Documents
Settlement Agreements
CFPB Guidance Documents
Other Guidance Documents
Statements of Policy
Position Papers
Studies and Proposals
Federal Register Notices
Proposed Rules and Regulations
RESPA News
Contact Us
Advertise
Request a Media Kit
Social Media
Are You An Expert?
Subscriber Agreement