Imagine buying your dream home, only to discover it’s at high risk of flooding or wildfires—a detail you never knew because it was conveniently left out of the listing. This is the reality Zillow’s recent decision has created for homebuyers. Just over a year after introducing climate risk scores to over 1 million property listings, Zillow has quietly removed them following complaints from real estate agents who claimed the data was costing them sales. But here’s where it gets controversial: is Zillow prioritizing agents’ profits over buyers’ right to know? Let’s dive in.
In September 2024, Zillow partnered with First Street, a climate risk analytics startup, to provide comprehensive climate risk data on its listings. The move was backed by a compelling statistic: over 80% of buyers consider climate risks when purchasing a home. Yet, last month, after pushback from the California Regional Multiple Listing Service (CRMLS), Zillow replaced the detailed risk scores with a subtle link to First Street’s records. Why the sudden change? And this is the part most people miss: the removal of this data doesn’t eliminate the risk—it simply shifts it from a pre-purchase concern to a post-purchase liability, as First Street spokesperson Matthew Eby pointed out.
First Street’s climate risk scores aren’t new to the real estate scene. They’ve been featured on Realtor.com since 2020 and remain on platforms like Redfin and Homes.com. The startup has raised over $50 million from investors, including General Catalyst and Galvanize Climate Solutions, underscoring the growing demand for climate risk transparency. Yet, CRMLS CEO Art Carter argues that displaying flood probabilities can unfairly tarnish a property’s desirability. He also questions the accuracy of First Street’s data, suggesting areas without recent flooding are unlikely to face risks in the near future. But is this skepticism justified, or is it a convenient way to avoid uncomfortable conversations with buyers?
This isn’t the first time agents have pushed back against climate risk transparency. When Zillow introduced the feature last year, a Massachusetts agent told the Boston Globe that the scores were planting unnecessary concerns in buyers’ minds. First Street, however, stands by its methodology. “Our models are built on transparent, peer-reviewed science and validated against real-world outcomes,” Eby said. For instance, during the Los Angeles wildfires, First Street’s maps accurately identified over 90% of homes at severe or extreme risk—outperforming official state hazard maps.
Speaking of official maps, they’ve faced criticism for being outdated or underestimating risks. A Louisiana State University analysis found that nearly twice as many properties face a 1% annual flood risk (a so-called 100-year flood) than are listed on FEMA’s flood maps. As climate change intensifies extreme weather, industries like real estate and insurance are scrambling to adapt. “If buildings are on fire or underwater, they don’t have much value,” wrote Peter Gajdoš of Fifth Wall in a 2021 TechCrunch article. Yet, Zillow’s decision seems to move in the opposite direction, leaving buyers in the dark.
By removing climate risk scores, Zillow may have leveled the playing field for agents, but it’s added another hurdle for consumers. Investors, insurers, and cities will likely continue relying on data from companies like First Street—so why shouldn’t homebuyers have the same access? Is Zillow’s decision a step backward in climate transparency, or a necessary compromise to keep the market moving? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments. What do you think: Should homebuyers have access to climate risk data, even if it makes some properties less appealing?
