Over one weekend in late November 2025, Zillow quietly removed visible climate risk scores from more than a million home listings across the United States. Flood, wildfire, heat, wind, and air-quality ratings that had been prominently displayed on property pages were shifted behind an external link that most users never open. The move came as homeowners face surging insurance premiums and, in some cases, discover that newly purchased homes cannot be insured at all.
Zillow introduced the climate risk feature just fourteen months earlier, in September 2024, using data from the First Street Foundation, a nonprofit that built peer-reviewed models for every U.S. property. The company promoted the tool as crucial at launch, citing its own finding that more than 80 percent of prospective buyers consider climate risks when searching for a home. When the scores disappeared in 2025, Zillow said the change was necessary “to adhere to varying MLS requirements and maintain a consistent experience for all consumers.”
Contradictions, Lawsuits, and Market Fallout
Zillow’s explanation was quickly challenged by the California Regional Multiple Listing Service (CRMLS), the nation’s largest MLS, which serves about 81,000 real estate professionals across multiple states. CRMLS issued a terse response: “There was no change.” Spokesperson Art Carter said the organization had identified no new rules that would have required removal of climate information.
Behind the public statements, CRMLS officials acknowledged a different pressure point. Carter noted that First Street’s models flagged high flooding probabilities in areas with no recent flood history, and that showing the likelihood of flooding in the next one or five years could strongly affect how desirable a property appears to buyers. Agents, in other words, were seeing climate scores as a direct threat to home values and sales.
Those concerns intensified after an October 2024 lawsuit in New York. Andrew and Eri Uerkwitz alleged that their home in Chappaqua was rated “9 out of 10” for flood risk on Zillow, even though it sat outside Federal Emergency Management Agency flood zones and had no documented history of flooding. They claim the score scared off buyers, left the home on the market longer, and contributed to a sale roughly $100,000 below the asking price.
Zillow’s own March 2025 research underscored how strongly climate scores can influence buyer behavior. According to the company’s analysis, homes with extreme flood risk had only a 52 percent chance of selling, compared with 71 percent for low-risk properties. Listings tagged with high fire or flood risk sold less often and spent more time on the market, confirming that transparency over climate hazards reduces transaction volume.
Climate Risk, Insurance Shock, and Systemic Strain
The rollback of Zillow’s climate data coincided with an escalating insurance crisis in many parts of the country. By 2025, the average premium for new homeowner policies had climbed to about $1,966, up 45 percent from 2022. Between 2023 and 2024 alone, premiums rose nearly 19 percent. Based on current trajectories, cumulative increases by 2027 are projected to exceed 54 percent compared with 2023, putting heavy strain on middle-income buyers.
Nowhere are the pressures more visible than in California. The state’s FAIR Plan, designed as an insurer of last resort for properties that private carriers will not cover, had about $150 billion in exposure in 2020. By September 2025, that figure had surged to roughly $700 billion across about 650,000 policies. A McKinsey analysis that combines FAIR Plan exposure with private market gaps estimates a total homeowners insurance shortfall of $1.35 trillion to $2 trillion, raising concerns about the system’s long‑term solvency.
The January 2025 Palisades and Eaton wildfires in Los Angeles illustrated the stakes of underestimating climate risk. The fires destroyed more than 16,000 structures, caused at least 29 deaths, and generated initial estimates of $250 billion to $275 billion in damage and economic loss. The FAIR Plan alone received 3,600 claims with potential exposure topping $4.7 billion. For many homeowners, losses collided with limited coverage or soaring premiums, turning information gaps into unmanageable financial shocks.
Models, Accuracy, and Competing Platforms
First Street Foundation has pushed back against criticism of its data. Founder and CEO Matthew Eby says the group’s models are based on transparent, peer-reviewed methods that draw from U.S. Geological Survey records, NOAA weather data, stream gauges, and physics-based hydrologic modeling, then validate results against real-world flood events. He points to Hurricane Debby as a crucial test: 78 percent of flooded properties were outside FEMA flood zones, yet 85 percent of those would have received insurance recommendations under the First Street scores that Zillow once displayed. For Eby, that outcome shows that forward-looking models can identify threats that legacy maps miss.
Eby has also warned that removing climate scores does not eliminate risk, but shifts it. Without clear information before purchase, families only discover exposure after a disaster, when they learn flood coverage should have been in place or find that wildfire insurance is unaffordable or unavailable.
While Zillow retreated, some rivals moved in the opposite direction. Redfin announced that it would keep showing First Street climate scores on its listings. Chief Economist Daryl Fairweather has argued that these ratings are essential for people making major financial decisions. Redfin cites a 2020 experiment involving 17.5 million users: among buyers browsing severely flood-prone homes, those who saw climate scores ultimately made offers on properties with 50 percent less risk than those who did not see the data. As of early December 2025, Redfin, Realtor.com, and Homes.com all continued to display First Street scores, giving them an edge with buyers actively seeking risk information.
Power of the MLS and Emerging Rules
Zillow’s nationwide removal, rather than a narrower change confined to CRMLS regions, highlights the leverage that large listing services hold. Zillow depends on MLS data feeds to populate its platform. Losing access to CRMLS would severely damage its presence in California, where annual residential transaction values total roughly $240 billion to $250 billion.
At the same time, insurance troubles are already disrupting deals. Surveys of California agents suggest that 13 to 16 percent of transactions are now derailed by insurance issues. With state transaction values at current levels, that implies about $31 billion to $35 billion in sales falling through each year because buyers cannot secure affordable coverage, discover that insurance is unavailable, or learn late in the process that a property is effectively uninsurable.
Some experts caution that property-by-property climate scoring is still evolving. Jesse Keenan, a climate risk management specialist at Tulane University, has argued that there is growing bipartisan support for government involvement in standardizing risk assessment. He has also suggested that Zillow’s change reflects market pressures more than an industry-wide attempt to hide climate hazards.
Looking Ahead as Buyers Demand Clarity
Several states and local jurisdictions are considering rules that would require climate risk disclosures in real estate transactions, paralleling evolving standards for climate-related financial reporting. Large institutional investors already use detailed hazard maps and climate analytics for underwriting decisions, while most individual buyers rely mainly on public records, insurance quotes, and listing information.
Zillow’s decision, and the divergent approach taken by its competitors, underscores a broader question for the housing market: how much risk information will be visible to ordinary buyers as climate impacts intensify and insurance markets strain? Over the next 18 months, consumer expectations, regulatory changes, and investor demands for reliable climate data will help determine whether comprehensive risk scores become a standard feature of home shopping or remain a patchwork tool available only on certain platforms. For now, the gap between what sophisticated investors know and what typical families see when they search for a home remains wide.
Sources:
The New York Times (November 30, 2025) – Zillow climate risk scores reporting and CRMLS contradictions
Grist (December 3, 2025) – Zillow climate data removal and industry pressure analysis
Zillow Investor Relations (September 25, 2024) – First Street Foundation partnership announcement and September 2024 launch documentation
California Association of Realtors Survey (2024-2025) – Insurance unavailability impact on real estate transactions and agent experience data
Matic 2025 Home Insurance Trends Report – Premium cost analysis showing $1,966 average policies and 45% increase from 2022
McKinsey Financial Services (October 2021, Updated 2025) – California homeowners insurance market analysis and FAIR Plan exposure figures
UCLA Anderson Forecast (2025) – Los Angeles January 2025 wildfire economic damage and structural loss estimates
Fortune (January 17, 2025) – FAIR Plan exposure from Palisades and Eaton fires
First Street Foundation Research – Hurricane Debby flood zone analysis and peer-reviewed climate risk methodology
Redfin Chief Economist Analysis (December 2025) – Climate score transparency data and 2020 user experiment findings