Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Sep. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings Below is a discussion of our material, pending legal proceedings. Except as otherwise indicated, given the preliminary stage of these proceedings and the claims and issues presented, we cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses. In addition, we are regularly subject to claims, litigation, and other proceedings, including potential regulatory proceedings, involving employment, intellectual property, privacy and data protection, consumer protection, competition and antitrust laws, and commercial or contractual disputes, and other matters. The outcomes of our legal proceedings and other contingencies are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to our operating results and cash flows for a particular period. We evaluate, on a regular basis, developments in our legal proceedings and other contingencies that could affect the amount of liability, including amounts in excess of any previous accruals and reasonably possible losses disclosed, and make adjustments and changes to our accruals and disclosures as appropriate. For the matters we disclose that do not include an estimate of the amount of loss or range of losses, such an estimate is not possible or is immaterial, and we may be unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of non-monetary remedies. Until the final resolution of such matters, if any of our estimates and assumptions change or prove to have been incorrect, we may experience losses in excess of the amounts recorded, which could have a material effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Except for the matters discussed below, we do not believe that any of our pending litigation, claims, and other proceedings are material to our business. Lawsuit by David Eraker—On May 11, 2020, David Eraker, our co-founder and former chief executive officer who departed Redfin in 2006, filed a complaint through Appliance Computing III, Inc. (d/b/a Surefield) ("Surefield"), which is a company that Mr. Eraker founded and that we believe he controls, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division. The complaint alleged that we were infringing four patents claimed to be owned by Surefield without its authorization or license. Surefield sought an unspecified amount of damages and an injunction against us offering products and services that allegedly infringe the patents at issue. On May 17, 2022, the jury returned a verdict in our favor, finding that we did not infringe any of the asserted claims of the patents claimed to be owned by Surefield, and accordingly, we do not owe any damages to Surefield. The jury also found that all asserted claims of Surefield’s claimed patents were invalid. The court entered final judgment on August 15, 2022. On September 12, 2022, Surefield filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial. In the motions, Surefield asserts that no jury could have found non-infringement based on the trial record, among other things. We filed oppositions to the motions on October 3, 2022 and Surefield filed replies on October 21, 2022. On October 7, 2024, the court appointed a technical advisor to assist the court with the pending post-trial motions. Lawsuits Alleging Misclassification—On August 28, 2019, Devin Cook, who was one of our former independent contractor licensed sales associates, whom we call associate agents, filed a complaint against us in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The plaintiff initially pled the complaint as a class action and alleged that we misclassified her as an independent contractor instead of an employee. The plaintiff also sought unspecified penalties pursuant to representative claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). On January 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint dismissing her class action claim and asserting only claims under PAGA. On November 20, 2020, Jason Bell, who was one of our former lead agents as well as a former associate agent, filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint was pled as a class action and alleges that, (1) during the time he served as an associate agent, we misclassified him as an independent contractor instead of an employee and (2) during the time he served as a lead agent, we misclassified him as an employee who was exempt from minimum wage and overtime laws. The plaintiff also asserted representative claims under PAGA. The plaintiff sought unspecified amounts of unpaid overtime wages, regular wages, meal and rest period compensation, waiting time and other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs. On May 23, 2022, pursuant to a combined mediation, we settled the lawsuits brought by Ms. Cook and Mr. Bell for an aggregate of $3,000. On April 7, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlements. The motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement was granted by the court on May 4, 2023. The motion for final approval of the class settlement was granted on November 28, 2023. The settlement funds have been paid and are being distributed to class members. The Court entered an order closing the case on July 19, 2024. Lawsuits Alleging Antitrust Violations—Since October 2023, a number of class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of putative classes of home buyers and home sellers against the National Association of Realtors, local real estate associations, multiple listing services, and various residential real estate brokerages in various federal districts in the United States. Some of these lawsuits name Redfin as a defendant, including: •Don Gibson, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al., Case no. 4:23-cv-00788-SRB, filed on October 31, 2023 in United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (the “Gibson Action”). •Mya Batton et al. v. Compass, Inc., et al., Case no. 1:23-cv-15618, filed on November 2, 2023 in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. •1925 Hooper LLC, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., Case no. 1:23-cv-05392-SEG, filed on December 6, 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. •Daniel Umpa v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., Case no. 4:23-cv-00945-FJG, filed on December 27, 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (the “Umpa Action”). •Nathaniel Whaley v. National Association of Realtors, et al., Case no. 2:24-cv-00105-GMN-MDC, filed on January 25, 2024 in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. •Angela Boykin v. National Association of Realtors, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00340, filed on February 16, 2024 in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. •Freedlund v. Redfin Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01561, filed on February 26, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. •Rajninder (Raven) Jutla, et al. v. Redfin Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00464, filed on April 1, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California and transferred on April 5, 2024, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. These lawsuits variously allege a conspiracy to fix prices stemming from a National Association of Realtors rule, which allegedly requires brokers to make a blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property on a multiple listing service. The plaintiffs generally seek injunctive relief, unspecified damages under federal antitrust law, and unspecified damages under various state laws. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied a motion to consolidate some of these cases as In re Real Estate Commission Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3100 on April 12, 2024. At this time, except as set forth below, we are unable to predict the potential outcome of these lawsuits. On May 3, 2024, we entered into a settlement term sheet (the “Proposed Settlement”) and on June 26, 2024, we executed a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to resolve, on a nationwide basis, all claims asserted in the Gibson Action and the Umpa Action, each pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. These two cases are collectively referred to as “The Lawsuits.” The Settlement Agreement resolves all claims in the Lawsuits and similar claims on behalf of home sellers on a nationwide basis against Redfin (the “Claims”) and releases Redfin, its subsidiaries and its employees and contractors from the Claims. Neither the Proposed Settlement nor the Settlement Agreement include any admissions of liability. Under the Settlement Agreement, Redfin paid $9,250 (the “Settlement Amount”) into a qualified settlement fund on August 26, 2024. The Settlement Amount is included in other current assets and accrued and other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets. In the first quarter of 2024, we recorded the Settlement Amount to general and administrative in our consolidated statements of comprehensive loss. Redfin also agreed to implement or continue certain practices outlined in the Settlement Agreement. On July 15, 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement and the court entered an Order granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement on November 4, 2024. The Settlement Agreement will become effective when the time period for filing an appeal expires without any appeals having been filed or, if an appeal is filed, when the Settlement Agreement is ultimately approved by the court of last resort through that appeal process. The deadline to file an appeal is December 4, 2024, and no appeal has been filed as of November 6, 2024. Lawsuit Alleging Privacy Violations—We use evolving tools and technology, such as pixels, in the operation of our websites. We are from time to time involved in, and may in the future be subject to third-party claims alleging consumer data privacy violations. On June 25, 2024, Redfin was named in a putative class action lawsuit, Mata v. Redfin, Case No. 24-cv-1094L, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that Redfin has used tracking technologies on its website that shares information about visitors’ activity on the site and guided tour videos they watch with third parties, in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks: (i) an order certifying the class and subclass outlined in the complaint; (ii) an order declaring that our alleged conduct violates the VPAA and the CIPA; (iii) an award of statutory damages under the VPAA to the class and under CPAA to the subclass; (iv) for punitive damages; (v) for prejudgment interest; and (vi) for injunctive relief. On October 30, 2024, the court entered an order granting a joint motion to stay the case pending completion of Plaintiff’s individual arbitration. The parties are required to file a joint status report on or before February 5, 2025, updating the court on the status of the arbitration. Lawsuit Alleging Violations of Pay Transparency Law—On July 24, 2024, Redfin was named in a putative class action lawsuit, Hancock v. Redfin, Case No. 24-2-16685-8 SEA in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King. The complaint alleges Redfin failed to comply with Washington’s pay transparency law by failing to disclose the wage scale or salary range in each job posting. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class seeks, (i) statutory damages of $5 to Plaintiff and each class member, (ii) costs and attorneys’ fees, (iii) preliminary and injunctive relief, (iv) declaratory relief, and (v) pre-and post-judgment interest. At this time we are unable to predict the potential outcome of this lawsuit. Other Commitments Our title and settlement business and our mortgage business each hold cash in escrow at third-party financial institutions on behalf of homebuyers and home sellers. As of September 30, 2024, we held $44,724 in escrow and did not record this amount on our consolidated balance sheets. We may be held contingently liable for the disposition of the cash we hold in escrow.