The Industry Relations Podcast is now available on your favorite podcast player!

Overview

Rob and Greg open by unpacking the news that a federal judge has finally approved the Sitzer/Burnett settlement, tossing out remaining objections — officially closing that chapter for NAR and the industry. They debate whether this outcome was a "win" for NAR, discuss the power vacuum left in organized real estate's wake, and praise NAR's recent social media/PR efforts (specifically an Instagram explainer video). The bulk of the episode digs into Unlock MLS's new tiered participant framework (base service, direct service brokerage, platform brokerage) — sparked by an op-ed from Emily Gerrard — and what it means to legally and philosophically define "what is a broker" in a post-compensation, post-NAR-settlement world. Rob and Greg spar over whether MLSs should double down on being cooperatives of brokerages or pivot to being data-licensing utilities, using Zillow, Homes.com, and hypotheticals (including an adult-content site and a NJ lead-gen "broker") as test cases.

Key Takeaways

• The Sitzer/Burnett settlement has been fully approved after the 8th Circuit rejected remaining objections
• NAR reportedly told lawyers to negotiate the maximum settlement amount it could actually afford, effectively avoiding insolvency
• Rob argues NAR is no longer the center of gravity in real estate, leaving a "power vacuum" in the industry
• Both hosts praised a recent NAR Instagram explainer (legal/stats update) as a strong new-media format worth other associations copying
• Rob floats the idea of NAR/MLS leadership doing authentic, unscripted weekly podcasts or livestreams to rebuild member trust
• Unlock MLS introduced a new three-tier participant structure: base service, direct service brokerage, and platform brokerage
• Emily Gerrard's op-ed on Real Estate News argues participant definitions should be reframed around data usage rather than identity
• Rob strongly supports Unlock's move, calling it the biggest MLS innovation in decades; Greg is more skeptical of redefining "participant" and prefers a pure data-licensing approach
• They debate whether Zillow, Homes.com, and similar platforms should be treated as "brokers" vs. licensed data users
• Rob predicts Unlock will likely face a lawsuit over the new rules but believes they'd win
• The 2008 DOJ/VOW settlement is revisited as historical context for why MLS participant rules can't discriminate by business model
• Discussion touches on AI/data governance, referencing a framework around who controls AI's access to listing data
• Episode closes with a running bet: Rob wagers Greg a steak dinner that fewer than 1% of brokers would define a broker as "a website that generates leads"

Links

Cooperation Article

NAR Social Media Post

Sitzer Settlement

Connect with Rob and Greg

Rob's Website

Greg's Website

Watch us on YouTube

Our Sponsors:

Cotality

Notorious VIP

The Giant Steps Job Board

Production and Editing Services by Sunbound Studios

The Industry Relations Podcast is now available on your favorite podcast player!

Rob and Greg open with Greg's car breaking down in 112-degree heat outside Barstow, then dig into the FTC's settlement with Zillow and Redfin over their leasing business deal, which regulators viewed as an attempt to dodge merger review. From there, the two spend most of the episode debating a bigger question raised by Rob's recent exchange with Mike Wurzer: did the MLS create genuinely new value by aggregating listings, or was that value always meant for real estate professionals rather than consumers? The conversation ranges across aggregation theory, the history of IDX and portal dominance (Zillow, Redfin, realtor.com), whether companies like House Canary and paper brokerages even qualify as "brokerages," and the 2008 DOJ settlement's actual scope. It closes with a debate over how to legally define a broker at all.

• The FTC pushed back on Zillow's attempt to acquire Redfin's leasing business without triggering merger review; the settlement requires Redfin to restart its own rental business, though it can still display Zillow rental listings.
• Rob calls the $100M settlement a "slap on the wrist" rather than a real penalty for either company.
• Rob's central argument: the MLS's aggregation of listings created value primarily for practitioners, comparable to Lexis Nexis and Westlaw's value to lawyers, not inherent value for consumers.
• Greg counters that aggregation itself creates new value regardless of who captures it, and that consumers clearly benefit from having listings in one place.
• The two trace the history of real estate going online — IDX, the rise of Zillow, Redfin, and realtor.com — and agree the portals won because they outspent brokerages on user experience.
• Rob argues the industry should unwind IDX in favor of straight data syndication to portals, separating "cooperation" (MLS's original purpose) from "data distribution" (a later add-on).
• Greg pushes back that most agents don't actually get leads from portals directly, but Rob argues that undercuts the case for IDX mattering to them at all.
• A long tangent debates whether entities like House Canary or paper brokerages qualify as "brokerages," and whether the 2008 DOJ settlement (about brokerage business-model discrimination) supports keeping IDX — Rob says no, Greg disagrees.
• The episode ends unresolved, with both agreeing to continue the debate and possibly bring Mike Wurzer on to discuss further.

Links

Debating Rob Hahn In Ohio: Are MLSs Killing Themselves?

Continuing the Debate with Mike Wurzer

Riposte with Rob

Connect with Rob and Greg

Rob's Website

Greg's Website

Watch us on YouTube

Our Sponsors:

Cotality

Notorious VIP

The Giant Steps Job Board

Production and Editing Services by Sunbound Studios

The Industry Relations Podcast is now available on your favorite podcast player!

Overview

Rob and Greg are joined by Michael Wurzer, President and CEO of FBS, for a live continuation of the IDX/data-distribution debate that started at the Columbus Realtors event and continued in a series of dueling LinkedIn posts. Rob argues the MLS should get out of data distribution and marketing entirely; Wurzer defends a reformed, usage-based IDX system; Greg plays referee. The conversation ranges from first-principles arguments about what the MLS is actually for, to pricing and licensing models, to whether a national MLS is closer than anyone thinks.

Key Takeaways

• Wurzer proposes keeping IDX but shifting to volume/usage-based licensing instead of blowing up the current system
• Rob argues the MLS's only legitimate first-principle purpose is brokerage cooperation, not data distribution or marketing
• Wurzer: licenses should follow use — display rights are separable from participation rights
• Rob compares reforming IDX incrementally to "improving slavery" rather than abolishing it — Greg pushes back hard
• Wurzer references Craig Cheatham's writing on shifting licensing focus to how data is used, not who's using it
• Discussion of whether non-broker companies (House Canary, Zillow, OpenAI) should get separate syndication licenses distinct from broker/participant data licenses
• Rob argues MLS "creates no data" — all data originates from brokers and agents (the "ultimate UGC")
• Wurzer counters that aggregation itself has independent value, distinct from the underlying listings
• Debate over whether a national MLS is realistic — Rob claims only ~25 MLSs are needed to reach 85% listing share
• Both agree clear cooperation as a nationwide mandate was likely a policy mistake
• Wurzer references Daniel Jones (Hive) as working on a formal "MLS constitution" concept

Links

Riposte with Rob

Connect with Rob and Greg

Rob's Website

Greg's Website

Watch us on YouTube

Our Sponsors:

Cotality

Notorious VIP

The Giant Steps Job Board

Production and Editing Services by Sunbound Studios