A federal judge in Washington has denied Zillow’s request to reconsider an earlier ruling in a proposed antitrust class action, allowing key claims to continue against the real-estate platform. The suit alleges Zillow leveraged its position in online home search to pressure affiliated agents to steer homebuyers toward Zillow’s mortgage offerings, tying platform access and agent relationships to mortgage-referral practices.

The case, Dupuis et al v. Zillow Group Inc et al, sits at the intersection of platform competition, referral economics, and consumer choice in residential real estate.

A new proposed consumer class action in the District of Nevada puts Vitauthority LLC’s supplement marketing under scrutiny. In Mathieson v. Vitauthority LLC, No. 2:26-cv-02828, the plaintiff challenges how the company allegedly marketed and sold certain products, teeing up the kind of labeling and advertising dispute that continues to drive class action filings in the health-and-wellness space.

Although the complaint details will matter, the putative class appears to center on consumers who purchased Vitauthority products and allegedly paid a premium based on the company’s representations.

A newly filed putative class action in the Northern District of California takes aim at supplement maker Pharmavite LLC, placing the company’s marketing and labeling practices under the microscope. In Spencer et al v. Pharmavite LLC, filed May 29, 2026, the named plaintiffs appear to be pursuing claims on behalf of consumers who purchased Pharmavite products allegedly marketed in a misleading manner.

While the complaint will provide the precise contours of the proposed class, cases like this typically define the class as purchasers of the challenged products during a specified limitations period, often on a statewide or nationwide basis depending on the claims asserted.