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

Overview
Rob and Greg break down Compass's newly filed lawsuit against CRMLS in the Central District of California. They cover the eyebrow-raising $175 million figure tied to commission settlement costs and why Rob thinks Compass has a strong case that's badly packaged. They also debate MLS "transparency" claims and OneHome, revisit precedent from Cantor v. Multiple Listing Service of Dutchess County and RealComp, and look at what MLSs facing Compass threats, like Unlock MLS and OneKey MLS, should do next.

Key Takeaways

• Compass's suit against CRMLS shifts the main legal action to California.
• Compass appears to seek recovery of commission settlement costs (Sitzer/Burnett, Gibson) from MLSs.
• Rob sees strong arguments in the complaint but a weak, overly combative narrative.
• The complaint doesn't explain why CRMLS's board would adopt rules that bind its own members.
• Rob argues MLS transparency claims fail because consumers can't join MLSs directly.
• Greg counters that OneHome gave roughly 12 million consumers CRMLS data access in a year.
• Rob says an MLS's customer is the agent who pays, not buyers or sellers.
• Cantor v. MLS of Dutchess County struck down a rule that had little to do with the cooperative: mandatory MLS yard signs.
• The core question is whether MLSs should regulate how properties are marketed.
• NAR's 2004 change, dropping the advertising restriction from the 14 points, was followed by DOJ action.
• Greg questions whether MLSs can negotiate in good faith with Compass, given its shifting demands.
• Rob urges MLSs to try to avoid costly litigation before going to "war."
• Greg notes MLSs feel squeezed between Compass suits and potential seller lawsuits.
• The 1983 FTC Butters Report shows the MLS is anti-competitive by design but delivers major consumer benefits.
• Rob predicts private and office-exclusive listings will grow, driven by buyer demand in a K-shaped economy.

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 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