Cooperation or Control? Past REALTOR Association President Questions the Rules

OPINION | By T.W. Shortt
Past President of the Heart of Kentucky Association of REALTORS® and Principal Broker, REALTY WORLD Knox Realty Group, LLC

More than twenty years ago, my experience as a flat-fee broker raised questions about MLS practices that still concern me today: Do the rules strengthen cooperation and protect consumers? Or can they also restrict competition and discourage different ways of doing business?

A new lawsuit brings those questions back into focus.

On October 16, Compass filed an antitrust lawsuit against California Regional Multiple Listing Service, challenging rules that require certain publicly marketed listings to be shared through the MLS. CRMLS had already sued to establish that its rules are lawful.

The central question deserves public attention: Who decides how a homeowner’s property is marketed?

Compass argues that sellers should be able to authorize public advertising while keeping their listings outside MLS distribution, without their agents facing fines. CRMLS argues that brokers should not benefit from competitors’ shared listings while withholding their own publicly marketed inventory.

Both positions deserve a fair hearing.

As a former president of the Heart of Kentucky Association of REALTORS®, I understand the value of an MLS. Cooperation helps brokers connect buyers and sellers. Shared information supports pricing, expands exposure, and helps transactions move forward.

But cooperation must earn its place through the value it delivers. Rules adopted by competing businesses deserve careful examination when they restrict how those businesses compete.

My experience with flat-fee brokerage more than two decades ago shaped that view. Offering a different service or pricing model should prompt a discussion about consumer value. It should not automatically become a dispute over whether the traditional system will accommodate competition.

That experience makes the Compass case especially relevant to me.

Here at home, HKAR’s written rules generally require submission of covered exclusive listings. Sellers may request an office exclusive that is filed but withheld from distribution. Once the property is publicly marketed, however, the rules require sharing through the MLS within one business day.

Consider a homeowner who tells a broker: “Advertise my property on your website, but keep it outside MLS distribution.”

Under the attached HKAR rules, that public advertising triggers the sharing requirement. Compass is challenging that kind of restriction.

I generally believe broad exposure serves sellers well. But recommending MLS exposure and requiring it as a condition of public marketing are different decisions. Sellers deserve a clear explanation of the benefits, limitations, and consequences of each available approach.

Compass also deserves scrutiny. Would its preferred system expand meaningful consumer choice, or strengthen large brokerages that control substantial inventories? Smaller firms and buyers have a stake in that answer.

The courts will decide the legal claims. Until then, members must follow applicable rules.

Our responsibility is to ask whether those rules protect consumers, preserve fair competition, and justify the restrictions they impose.

After decades in this business, I believe we should preserve cooperation while making room for innovation. A strong MLS should demonstrate its value every day—and welcome serious questions about how it operates.

Save Thousand when selling your house with https://www.FlatFeeConnect.com