Key takeaways
Rightmove faces major competition law challenge
A £1.6bn collective action over alleged dominance abuse.
Claim tests multiple abuse of dominance theories
Combines excessive pricing allegations and exclusionary conduct theories.
Digital platforms and SME claims remain under scrutiny
Case highlights growing focus on digital platforms and SMEs.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal is considering an application by Jeremy Newman to bring a £1.6bn opt out collective action against Rightmove plc and Rightmove Group Ltd on behalf of around 7,200 estate agents, letting agents and developers who paid to list properties on the platform.
The claim targets Rightmove’s fees for its property portal services, alleging that the company abused a dominant position in the UK online property portal market. Two strands of alleged abuse are pleaded:
excessive pricing – subscribers were charged unfairly high fees compared to a competitive benchmark and
exclusionary conduct – behaviour said to weaken rival portals, reinforcing Rightmove’s market power and limiting effective competition.
The proposed class is limited to Rightmove’s direct customers – excluding sellers and landlords –rather than end consumers, reflecting the growing use of the UK collective regime in SME focused claims, and covers the six year period prior to April 2026.
What’s actually interesting here
What makes this case more than a standard dominance claim is the two sided platform theory of harm. The claimant argues that restricting competition on one side of the market (rival portals) reduces usage overall, which in turn makes the platform more valuable and entrenched, enabling sustained overcharging. It’s an example that reflects how claimants are adapting traditional Article 102 concepts to new economic scenarios here it is where network effects and user dependency are central to analysis of dominance and harm.
The immediate issue is certification, but substantively the case centres on whether a dominant platform can be liable for charging excessive prices that are sustained by exclusionary conduct reinforcing market power in a two sided market. That combination – excessive pricing + foreclosure theory – is still relatively underdeveloped in UK private enforcement and will be closely watched.
Why this matters
This case is a further sign of three emerging trends in UK competition litigation:
Renewed focus on excessive pricing – with claimants increasingly willing to rely on financial performance and margins as evidence of overcharging.
Growth in SME collective actions – particularly where claimants are commercially dependent on the defendant and unlikely to pursue standalone claims.
Continued scrutiny of digital platforms – with claims focusing on how strong user networks and reliance on a single platform can make it difficult for competitors to gain traction.
If certified at a hearing in November 2026, the proceedings will be one of the most significant standalone abuse of dominance claims currently before the CAT and may provide further guidance on how far economically complex platform claims can be advanced on a collective basis. We will provide a further update after the November 2026 CAT hearing.
Learn more about our Commercial Dispute expertise, or for further information on collective actions please contact Anna Timms.
