Compass vs. the MLS: They’re Fighting Over Your House

Compass and multiple MLS organizations are now suing each other over who gets to control the marketing of a house that neither one of them owns. And here’s the question nobody seems interested in asking. What if neither side has the right answer? What if the problem isn’t Compass or the MLS organizations? What if the problem is the entire business model?
Here’s what’s happening. On October fifth, California Regional MLS filed a lawsuit against Compass, asking a federal court to uphold its Clear Cooperation rules. On October sixteenth, Compass filed its own antitrust lawsuit against California Regional MLS. Then, on October twenty-first, six more MLS organizations filed suit against Compass. And these aren’t just minor disagreements over listing procedures. They’re fighting over one of the most valuable assets in residential real estate. Inventory.
Compass wants greater freedom to publicly market properties without being required to place them in the MLS. The MLS organizations say that if a brokerage wants the benefits of the cooperative system, it should contribute its publicly marketed listings to that system. And the MLS organizations have a legitimate concern. If large brokerages begin withholding inventory while continuing to use everybody else’s listings, we’re moving toward a marketplace where certain companies have privileges others don’t.
Imagine looking for a house and discovering that some properties are available through one brokerage, others through another, and still others through a separate private network. That’s not a transparent marketplace. That’s a collection of walled gardens. And the bigger the brokerage, the more control it potentially has over what buyers can see.
But here’s where I disagree with the MLS organizations. Their answer is to protect the existing MLS system. They talk about cooperation, transparency, consumer protection, and the value of centralized inventory. Those are important things. But why are we assuming that the present MLS structure is the only way to provide them?
I recently watched a BAM Knowledge Brokers discussion with Byron Lazine, Tom Toole, and James Dwiggins, president of NextHome. Dwiggins argued that seller choice is being used to justify brokerage marketing strategies. And I think he has a point when an agent encourages a seller to limit exposure primarily because it benefits the brokerage. That’s a legitimate concern. But that doesn’t make seller choice a manufactured problem. It raises a much bigger question. Why does a seller have to choose between competing business interests in the first place?
Let’s remember something important. Neither Compass nor the MLS created the property. Neither one owns the house. The seller owns the house. And without that seller deciding to sell, there is no listing, no buyer inquiry, no referral, no commission, and no transaction. The seller created the inventory that everybody is fighting over.
Now, the MLS has accomplished something valuable. It has brought enormous amounts of listing inventory together. I don’t dispute that. In fact, I believe that having the inventory in one place is precisely what the real estate market needs.
But that doesn’t mean we have to accept everything that’s been built around it.
Think about what happens when a listing enters the existing real estate system. Its information can be distributed to portals. Consumer inquiries can become leads. Leads can generate referral fees. Brokerages compete to control the consumer relationship. Technology companies, advertising businesses, and referral networks all have opportunities to make money around that property. Not every business is charging the seller directly. Not every service is unnecessary. But the money supporting those businesses doesn’t appear from nowhere.
And while all of that is happening, what is the seller trying to accomplish? Sell the house. Preferably with the best possible outcome, and without paying for services that provide little or no value.
The industry seems more interested in arguing over who gets to control the listing than in asking how much of this machinery the consumer actually needs.
Let’s look at Compass. It argues that sellers deserve more choices in how their property is marketed. I agree with that principle. But if the result is a marketplace where the biggest brokerages can control substantial amounts of inventory and give their own networks preferential access, how is that a better outcome for consumers? Changing who holds the power doesn’t necessarily solve the problem.
Now look at the MLS organizations. They argue that the cooperative system protects broad access to inventory. Again, I agree with the importance of broad access. But why should the people buying and selling houses have to accept the rest of the existing MLS structure just to get that benefit?
This is what I find missing from the entire argument. Nobody seems willing to question the fundamental model. It’s a battle over maintaining control versus expanding control. And both sides are arguing that their approach is in the consumer’s interest.
What if we removed the need for that battle?
What if there were one large, open, transparent marketplace where every participating brokerage had the same opportunity? Where the listing stayed connected to the professional actually selling the property? Where buyers could access the listing directly, without the marketplace selling their inquiry to somebody else? Where the marketplace charged an affordable fee for its service instead of taking a percentage of commissions or collecting referral fees?
That’s what Rethink Open House is working to build.
I’m not suggesting ROH currently has the inventory the MLS has. It doesn’t. That’s the advantage the MLS enjoys today. But there’s nothing magical about where that inventory lives. It’s there because property owners and the professionals representing them keep putting it there.
ROH is designed around a different purpose. We call it the First Showing Online. Give buyers a meaningful online experience of the property. Give sellers more control over how their home is presented. Let professionals keep their branding and direct connections. Let the owner decide what professional services are worth paying for. And get the unnecessary money out of the middle.
Agents still have an important role. Buyers may want representation. Sellers may want a full-service agent. Lenders, inspectors, title professionals, and attorneys provide services that may be necessary or valuable. ROH isn’t about eliminating useful professionals. It’s about eliminating the unnecessary financial machinery between the property and the people buying and selling it.
So when I look at these lawsuits, I don’t see a battle where I need to pick a winner. I see a real estate industry fighting over a model that needs to change.
Compass doesn’t need to control the inventory. The MLS organizations don’t need to control the future of selling houses. The marketplace needs to work for buyers, sellers, and the professionals who actually provide value.
The seller created the inventory. It’s time to build a marketplace that respects that.
The MLS has the inventory. Rethink Open House has the better model.

© Rethink Open House. Transcript provided for accessibility, reference, and educational use. Unauthorized republication is prohibited.