Zillow Drops Climate Risk Scores After Industry Pushback

Zillow just pulled a climate-risk feature that had become increasingly popular but also allegedly led to some deal friction.

The platform removed First Street Foundation-generated risk scores from more than a million listings, the New York Times reported. The tool meant to give buyers a clearer read on flood, fire and storm exposure, but many in the industry said it spooked shoppers.

The reversal followed complaints from the California Regional Multiple Listing Service, one of the largest MLS operators in the country, which warned Zillow about what it viewed as inaccurate flood assessments; Zillow relies heavily on the MLS ecosystem for listing data and can’t afford a breakdown in that pipeline.

After the objections, the company stripped the scores but left links to First Street so users can click out for details.

CRMLS chief executive officer Art Carter argued that plastering a specific flood probability onto a single home can distort its value and choke demand. Agents echoed that concern on the ground, with one saying a potential buyer canceled a long-distance trip to view a property after seeing the flood risk rating.

Sellers have been just as frustrated, with no ability to challenge or remove scores that they insist mislabel their homes.

The broader backdrop is a market still struggling to get a grasp on climate exposure. First Street’s models often show far more homes at risk than FEMA maps indicate, and competing portals like Redfin and Realtor.com still display similar data.

“Our models are built on transparent, peer-reviewed science and the full methodologies are publicly available for anyone to review on our website,” First Street CEO Matthew Eby said in a statement.

A Redfin experiment found that surfacing flood-risk ratings directly influenced user behavior and clipped sale prices on high-risk homes by roughly 1 percent. Zillow’s own research suggests high-risk homes move more slowly, though it hasn’t directly tied that to its scoring system.

CRMLS is pressing other platforms to mute certain flood details, escalating a debate over what level of precision is “good enough” when the forecasted events haven’t happened yet. Academics note that forward-looking models, by definition, can’t be validated against historical records at the parcel level.

For now, the industry remains stuck between consumer demand for transparency and the market consequences of putting climate risk front and center.

— Holden Walter-Warner