Is This The End Of The MLS?
The topic for the first 2026 Update podcast of the regular series hosted by Tristan Ahumada along with Saul Klein and John Reilly was “The End of the MLS? NAR Lawsuits, Zillow vs Compass, and the Real Estate Power Shift Explained”
There were many issues discussed during this 38 minute session — including the impact of private listing networks, the battle of the portals over dominance and consolidation – although taking the spotlight was the response to Tristan’s critical question: “Is this the end of the MLS?”
As the CEO of the San Diego MLS, Saul was quick to respond with the fact that MLSs should be looking for alternative ways to showcase the value of the MLS. He explores the concept of flipping the current subscription-based business model and finding opportunities to monetize the data and bring benefits back to the providers of the data.
You can hear some of Saul’s solutions to Tristan’s MLS question by listening to the recording of the Update podcast, especially jumping to minutes 29:17 thru 33:22
Earlier in the podcast, the comment was made that NAR probably lost the mammoth Sitzer/Burnett billion dollar lawsuit because NAR used incompetent attorneys. Saul pointed out that the NAR attorneys never got the chance to argue the pro-competitive nature of brokerage practices because the trial judge used the Pro Se standard instruction whereby the Sherman Act violation was deemed illegal as a matter of law, and thus the jury only needed to decide the amount of damages. It wasn’t the quality of the trial attorneys, the case was lost due to the judge’s ruling not to use the less restrictive “Rule of Reason” standard.
Plus, the real irony about competency is that the NAR lead attorney, Ethan Glass, an experienced and former DOJ antitrust attorney, no longer represents NAR – Mr. Glass is the current Chief Legal Officer of Compass (effective Sept 2025).
2 Responses
NAR lost the $200 billion Gibson et al. lawsuit because NAR used incompetent attorneys when they were drafting the NAR rules – all they had to do is (1) make the BAC optional (meaning, to allow for $0 BAC in 40 states where rebates are not banned), and (2) never allow brokers to advertise services as “free.”
Not only did they lose this lawsuit on the merits, they now lie about IPCs limits applicability toward buyer-paid commissions post-settlement.
Interested party contributions (IPCs) are contributions made by third parties with a vested interest in the transaction to cover costs that are >>>the buyer’s responsibility<<<
Since August 17, 2024, NAR-affiliated MLS Participants have been baking in buyer-paid closing costs into federally-funded loans as seller-paid commissions outside IPCs caps. This is $500 billion False Claims Act fraud over seven years. This affects every NAR-affiliated MLS Participant.
This is the primary reason why "nothing has changed" since the settlement took effect,
See https://geodoma.com/ipcs-limits
Saul’s question isn’t “can the MLS survive,” it’s “can the MLS survive its own behavior.”
Because the threat isn’t Zillow or Compass or whatever shiny private-network slogan is trending this week. The threat is member tolerance. Captive-fee models only work until the captives notice the exits.
Here’s the part that matters to me, in real life, not podcast theory:
Some MLSs are so desperate to monetize existence that they’re charging buyer agents to access electronic lockboxes. In New Hampshire, I’ve watched that kind of thinking lead to the inevitable: fewer agents bothering with ELBs, more combo boxes, and a security setup that basically says, “Please be decent, strangers.”
Charging for ELB access is like charging pilots extra to use the runway lights. Sure, you’ll collect the fee. But you’ll also increase the odds someone tries to land in the dark. And when that goes sideways, everyone acts shocked.
It doesn’t incentivize cooperation. It incentivizes workarounds.
So agents route around it with combo boxes. Keys get shared. The audit trail gets fuzzy. Sellers are less secure, not more. We’ve taken something designed for safety and accountability and turned it into a toll booth.
If MLSs want to flip the model, I agree with the direction Saul is pointing: stop selling logins and start selling outcomes.
But the only way “monetize the data” works ethically is if it’s governed like member-owned infrastructure, with transparent rules and real benefits flowing back to the people who generate the data in the first place. Otherwise it’s just another remix of: “Thanks for building the inventory, we’ll take it from here.”
Also, the legal piece you mention matters. People love to blame “incompetent attorneys,” but courtroom standards and instructions shape what can even be argued. That’s not a talking point, it’s the framework.
The MLS doesn’t die because a portal wins a battle. It dies because it becomes a tax on cooperation, and cooperation is the only reason it exists.
So yes, MLSs can survive. But not as toll booths. Infrastructure doesn’t get to punish usage and still call itself essential.