This month the Trump administration took another step towards addressing housing affordability.

But another problem remains: Digital platforms that Americans rely on to navigate the homebuying process are not the neutral guides they appear to be.

Some are designed to exploit consumers, and the evidence is now overwhelming. A just-released consumer investigation highlights the need for government oversight and intervention.

A 2024 Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia study documented a gap of 54 basis points between the best and worst mortgage rates for identical loans — equivalent to some $6,500 in upfront costs.

Platforms that steer consumers toward particular lenders, rather than encouraging comparison shopping, lock in these losses at scale. These practices exacerbate the high mortgage rates which consumers state are preventing them from purchasing a home.

The exploitation of consumers through manipulative interface design — what regulators call “dark patterns” — has already triggered billions in penalties. The FTC secured a historic $2.5 billion settlement with Amazon; Epic Games paid $520 million for deceptive design; and the FTC sued Adobe and two of its executives.

These cases established an important principle: When companies design interfaces that mislead consumers, regulators will act. And the stakes in housing — where a single manipulated transaction can cost a family thousands of dollars — are far greater.

I recently conducted a controlled experiment examining whether consumers understand who they are contacting when they click “Contact Agent” or “Request a Tour” on Zillow’s website. The results were extraordinary.

An astonishing 99.7% of consumers exposed to Zillow’s standard interface could not correctly identify who would contact them. They believed they were reaching the listing agent associated with the property.

They were wrong. Zillow routes users to agents who have paid for access.

In apparent response to recent lawsuits, Zillow has made changes, but those have not improved consumer understanding: only 2.3% answered correctly.

These findings held across income levels; financial sophistication provides no protection. The problem is the design, not the consumer.

This deception is the entry point into a broader system.

According to recent lawsuits, Zillow-affiliated agents may be required to meet quotas for referring buyers to Zillow Home Loans. Zillow allegedly monitors agent communications and penalizes those who recommend outside lenders.

The result: Buyers who believe they are getting independent guidance are steered toward Zillow’s own mortgage products. Zillow knows consumers don’t shop, and the evidence suggests it exploits this.

If dark patterns in subscriptions and video games warrant billions in penalties, what should the consequence be when the same tactics are deployed at the threshold of homeownership?

The FTC has shown that it will hold companies accountable for deceptive design. Helping Americans buy homes is only half the job. Protecting them from exploitation — and educating them to be informed consumers — is the other half.

As our experiment demonstrated, disclosures alone do not work. What does work is clear, unambiguous identification of who the agent is that Zillow is referring the consumer to.

Zillow could implement this change tomorrow. The question is whether the largest financial transaction in most Americans’ lives will remain the one place where deceptive design goes unchecked.

Wind is the Lauder professor emeritus and professor of marketing at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

© NY Daily News