In this article
Kooky
Builder of Shaka, the payment router that pays every agent their commission on closing date.
About Kooky and Shaka →Australia's two largest property portals are now in the Federal Court over each other's advertising. Domain has filed a claim against REA Group, the owner of realestate.com.au, over the statement that the site attracts the buyer for nine in ten homes that sell on it, and REA has answered with a cross-claim about Domain's own figures on 3D listings, the Australian Associated Press reported on 2 July 2026. The trade publication Online Marketplaces carried the story the same day.
AAP's report, published in The Canberra Times and other mastheads, says Domain filed in May and that the disputed REA statements appeared in an April media release, a statement to shareholders lodged with the ASX, a LinkedIn post and a billboard at Gold Coast Airport. No judgment has been given. What follows sets out what each side says, how the numbers at the centre of the case were built, and why a fight between two portal companies touches anyone who pays for property advertising in Queensland.
Claims as reported by AAP and Online Marketplaces on 2 July 2026. Each figure is contested by the other party and none has been tested by the court.
What each company has filed
Domain is the applicant. AAP reports its complaint as being that REA's statements are not supported by the data behind them, and that the model REA relies on cannot conclusively show how many buyers looked at a property on the site before buying it. Online Marketplaces describes the pleading as one of misleading or deceptive conduct, on the footing that the statements present realestate.com.au as so dominant that a reader would conclude a rival portal could only have a hand in one sale in ten.
Related readRTA Web Services: how Queensland bonds are lodged and refunded onlineTwo wordings are in dispute, as AAP quotes them. The first, from the April media release, is that realestate.com.au "attracts the buyer for 9 in 10 listed homes that sell on the platform". The second, shorter and built for a billboard, is "We help 9 in 10 buyers find the one".
REA's cross-claim turns the same argument around. Domain has promoted a package of 3D capture and virtual tour features under the name Matterport Suite, with the statement that listings using it receive 5.5 times more listing views and 4.2 times more buyer inquiries than comparable listings. REA says, according to AAP, that those multiples rest on a tiny sample of listings that were given disproportionate national exposure on Domain's homepage, so the uplift cannot be credited to the 3D features alone.
On the remedy, AAP says Domain wants REA stopped from advertising the disputed claims, along with any other measure the court sees fit. Online Marketplaces adds that Domain is asking for corrective advertising, which means a public withdrawal of the earlier statements.
How REA says the nine in ten figure was built
The reports describe the method REA has put forward. AAP names it as the Buyer Impact Model and records REA's answer that its claims were based on analysis of one million sales and independently verified by Deloitte. Online Marketplaces adds that the model was built by PropTrack, REA's property data business, and drew on 28 months of sales and more than 10 billion consumer data points.
One detail of the method matters more than the rest. According to Online Marketplaces, the analysis left out roughly 20 per cent of properties that sold without appearing on a major portal at all. So the nine in ten is not a share of every home sold in Australia. It is a share of homes that were listed on realestate.com.au and then sold.
Related readKeypads, fobs and key safes: Queensland's lock and entry rules applyThat is what the longer wording says: listed homes that sell on the platform. REA's public response keeps to it. "We help nine-in-10 buyers find the one across homes listed and sold on realestate.com.au," a company spokesperson told Online Marketplaces.
The shorter wording drops the qualifier. Whether an ordinary reader of a billboard or a LinkedIn post would take "9 in 10 buyers" to mean buyers of homes on that site, or buyers in general, is the kind of question a court in this type of case is asked to answer. Neither report says how REA's model decides that the site attracted a particular buyer, and that definition is likely to be examined closely, since a buyer who viewed a listing on two portals could in principle be counted by both.
| Point | REA's claim | Domain's claim |
|---|---|---|
| What is said | The site attracts the buyer for 9 in 10 listed homes that sell on it. | Matterport Suite listings get 5.5 times more views and 4.2 times more buyer inquiries than comparable listings. |
| Basis put forward | The Buyer Impact Model: analysis of 1 million sales, verified by Deloitte. | Not described in the reports. |
| The rival's objection | Not supported by the data, and the model cannot conclusively show it. | A tiny sample of listings that received disproportionate exposure. |
Sources: AAP and Online Marketplaces, 2 July 2026. Allegations only, with no court finding.
The cross-claim over 3D listings
Domain's multiples belong to a different family of statistic. They do not describe the whole portal. They compare one group of listings, those using the 3D package, with listings that do not.
A comparison like that is only as good as the two groups being alike in everything except the feature. Domain's wording says "comparable listings", which is a claim that they were. If the listings with 3D tours were also more expensive homes, in more searched suburbs, or placed more prominently on the site, the extra views could come from any of those things. REA's objection, as reported, is exactly that: the sample was small and the listings in it were given homepage exposure that ordinary listings do not get.
Related readThe software inside a real estate agency, and what trust law asksThe law both sides are relying on
Online Marketplaces describes Domain's case as one of misleading or deceptive conduct. That phrase comes from the Australian Consumer Law, which applies in Queensland as it does in every state. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's published guidance states the standard simply: advertised claims should be true, accurate and based on reasonable grounds, and a business must be able to prove any claim it advertises.
Three features of that rule, each set out in the ACCC's guidance, shape a case like this one. A statement can breach it without any intention to mislead. What counts is the overall impression, fine print included, and the regulator's Advertising and selling guide observes that small print does less work on a highway billboard than in a newspaper, so a qualification that appears in a media release may not rescue a billboard that omits it. And a business that makes a claim carries the task of showing its grounds. The present case also shows that the rule can be invoked by a competitor: the ACCC is not a party, and nothing in the reports suggests the regulator is involved in these proceedings.
On the orders being sought, the two reports agree in substance: an injunction to stop a claim being repeated and, on Online Marketplaces' account, advertising that corrects it. The ACCC's guide records corrective advertising among the orders courts have made in consumer law cases. Neither report mentions a claim for damages.
Neither report gives the name of the judge or the date of the next hearing.
Related readVirtual tours, 3D models and floor plans: accuracy and the lawA filed claim is an allegation, not a finding
Everything reported so far is what each company says about the other. REA stands by its figure and Domain stands by its own. Until the Federal Court decides, neither set of numbers has been found to be misleading, and neither has been confirmed.
Why portals compete on these numbers
Portal advertising in Australia is mostly paid for by the seller. In Queensland the marketing budget is set out in the appointment form a seller signs with an agent, and the portal listing is usually one of the larger lines in it. The choice of portal, and of how prominent a listing to buy on it, is normally made by the seller on the agent's recommendation.
So the audience for a claim like "9 in 10 buyers" is small and specific: agents deciding what to recommend and vendors deciding what to pay for. A statistic that suggests one site finds nearly every buyer is an argument for buying the dearer listing on that site and treating the second portal as optional. A statistic that suggests a 3D tour multiplies enquiries is an argument for the rival's package. Each number is a sales tool before it is anything else.
AAP describes the two as the country's online real estate giants, and the contest between them is for the same marketing budgets.
What the dispute means for Queensland sellers and agents
For a seller, nothing changes today. Both portals continue to operate as before, the disputed advertisements have not been ruled on, and the court has made no order that affects how a home is listed.
The case is still useful as a reminder of how to read portal statistics, whoever publishes them. Three questions do most of the work.
- What is the figure a share of? "Nine in ten homes sold on this site" and "nine in ten homes sold" are different claims. The first can be true while the second is not.
- What was compared with what? A multiple such as 5.5 times needs two groups that differ only in the feature being promoted.
- Who measured it, and over what period? A model built by the company making the claim is not worthless, but it is not the same thing as an independent audit, and a validation covers the method the validator was shown.
For agents, the dispute sits closer to home. An agent who repeats a portal's statistic in a listing presentation is making a representation of their own to a prospective client, and the same consumer law applies to it. The practical point, which is general information and not advice on any one situation, is that a claim quoted with its qualifier and its source is a safer thing to pass on than a slogan.
The Gold Coast Airport billboard gives the story its Queensland address, but the questions it raises are national. Queensland sellers pay for portal advertising under the same model as everyone else, and whatever the court decides about how audience and enquiry claims may be worded will apply to the marketing they are shown.
What happens next
The proceedings are at an early stage. With a claim and a cross-claim on foot, the ordinary course in the Federal Court is for the parties to exchange evidence, which in this case would include the models and samples behind each statistic, before any hearing. Cases of this kind are also often resolved by agreement, with one or both sides changing the wording of their advertising.
Until there is a ruling or a settlement, both companies are free to keep defending their figures. Neither report gives a date for the next step in court.
Kooky, from Shaka
Kooky edits Queensland Estate and builds Shaka, the payment router he made for Queensland property professionals. One payment comes in, and every agent, agency and party in the deal receives their signed share on closing date.
