Zillow Just Declared War on Compass

Zillow is suing MRED and Compass in a legal battle that could completely reshape the future of real estate listings in America.

In this episode of Dishin’ Dirt, Gary Pickren breaks down the exploding controversy over private listings, hidden inventory, MLS control, and buyer access to homes. After tens of thousands of Chicago-area listings suddenly disappeared from Zillow, the industry was forced to confront a major question:

Who actually controls listing visibility — the seller, the brokerage, the MLS, or the real estate portals?

This episode dives into:

• Zillow’s antitrust lawsuit against MRED and Compass
• Why 43,000 listings vanished from Zillow
• The fight over private and “exclusive” listings
• Clear Cooperation and delayed marketing rules
• Whether hidden listings hurt buyers and sellers
• Why brokerages are pushing private inventory strategies
• The ethics and business implications of pocket listings
• How this impacts agents, consumers, and the future of housing transparency

Whether you’re a Realtor, broker, investor, homebuyer, or seller, this conversation affects you.

Because the real question is no longer just how homes are sold…

It’s who gets access to them.

Subscribe to Dishin’ Dirt for weekly conversations on real estate law, industry changes, brokerage strategy, housing trends, and the future of real estate.

Don't forget to like us and share us!
Gary

* Gary serves on the South Carolina Real Estate Commission as a Commissioner. The opinions expressed herein are his opinions and are not necessarily the opinions of the SC Real Estate Commission. This podcast is not to be considered legal advice. Please consult an attorney in your area.    

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

So check this out. You're a buyer sitting at home on your phone, scrolling through Zillow. You think to yourself, you're seeing the entire market, every house that's for sale, the entire inventory, everything in your marketplace, right there on your phone, you're scrolling through it, you're seeing everything, every house. You know it all. And you think that you actually have a chance to compete fairly for any house that you see against everyone else, because everyone has the same access at the exact same time to the same houses, and everybody can compete against everybody. But what if that's not true? What if there's another housing market, a secret market, an access denied market to certain people, access allowed to certain insiders that's operating behind the scenes that you don't even know about? A market where certain homes aren't visible to everybody. They're only visible to certain brokerages, certain agents at that brokerage, certain networks, certain insiders. So you're not seeing everything and you can't see everything. And that's exactly what Zillow, Compass, and MRED are fighting about today. And that fight over the past week or so has gotten very ugly and it's exploded into a massive lawsuit over antitrust allegations and some very nasty allegations against Robert Refkin. Now, Zillow has sued one of the largest MLS systems in America, the largest MLS system in Chicago. Compass got pulled right into the middle of it. 43,000 listings in Chicago disappeared just like that overnight. Suddenly consumers could no longer see what houses were for sale on Zillow. But don't you worry, a federal judge stepped in just like federal judges seem to step in every day now, and they've stopped it temporarily. And now the entire real estate industry is asking the question that nobody in our industry has fully answered, quite frankly, don't want to answer. And that is who actually controls the listing and this data? Is it the seller who owns the house? Is it the brokerage who has the listing agreement? Is it the MLS who has the IDX agreement? Is it the portals who've paid for that IDX feed? Because let's make no mistake about this, guys. This is not a Chicago story, an Illinois story. This is a nationwide story. This is a preview for where real estate, and particularly residential real estate, is heading across our country for the next many years to come. Because underneath all of these legal arguments and all of the industry spend that we're hearing is a much bigger issue. Are we moving toward an open marketplace where everyone has equal access and equal opportunity, or are we headed to a private membership marketplace of real estate inventory that is going to have limited access to certain people? Is that where we're going? Because today we're going to unpack all of that. What's happened? Why is Zillow furious? Why is COMPAS continuing talking about seller choice? This is not about seller choice. That's a complete BS. Everybody knows it is. Why is the MLS caught in the middle of it? And why is every single agent in America needing to understand where this is going? Why is this important to you as a real estate agent here in South Carolina? I'm going to cover this and a whole lot more on today's episode of Dish and Dirt.

SPEAKER_00 2:49

This is Dish and Dirt with Gary Pickering, South Carolina's only podcast dedicated to the real estate agent craft. And now the host of Dish and Dirt, Gary Pickering.

SPEAKER_01 3:02

I'm your often opinionated, but rarely wrong host, Gary Pickering, company from the beautiful downtown Columbia, South Carolina offices of Blair Kato, Pickering Castelline, this, the last week of May 2026. Today, we are diving into one of the biggest fights happening in real estate right now. And honestly, it's probably one of the biggest and most important fights in our industry that we've had in many years. And we've had lots of those fights going on, it seems like every day now. What we're talking about is Zillow versus MRED, with Compass, of course, right in the middle of it. Compass is right in the middle of everything right now. Now, if you're sitting there and you're thinking to yourself, well, Gary, I'm not in Chicago, so I don't care. Trust me, you should care because what happens in this lawsuit is going to affect how residential real estate is handled nationwide for decades to come. Because this fight is a fight really about something a lot bigger. It is about who controls the listing, who controls access to the listing, who gets to see the listing and when? Who benefits from listings being public? Most importantly, who benefits from them being private? And underneath all of that is the question that ain't nobody talking about, nobody wants to answer. Is real estate becoming a two-tier market system? Is there one market for the public where everybody has access? Anybody who wants to look at it can, everybody has equal opportunity. And then there's the other market, the private market, where only the insiders, the connected, have the opportunity and people are excluded from participating in that market space. And if that's the case, what does that say about us as an industry? What does that talk about and say about us in a discrimination matter? So we're going to be talking all about that today. Now, if you have listened to Dish and Dirt at all in the past 30 days or so, you know two things are true. One, I am very, very critical of Robert Refkin because he's a bull in the China shop and that's his approach. And I don't think he has a lot of concern or thought as to what it's going to do to the real estate industry when he continues to go down these paths. He is causing, in my opinion, irreparable harm to our industry that's going to cause ripple effects unfair housing, anti-competition, things of that nature. And I've been very critical. But last week, I mentioned on my podcast that I had an epiphany about Robert Refkin. Maybe I had had misjudged him. Maybe I was wrong. And so but so when I was speaking to the broker roundtable at the Central Carolina Realtors Association last week, I was asked to be the speaker. I had somebody ask me, what up with this big epiphany about Robert Refkin? And I thought you didn't like the guy. I was like, I have nothing personal against him, I just don't like the way he's conducting business. But my epiphany became because of this. He said, in an article, I think it was on Housing Wire, he said he was not opposed to mandatory MLS listings in a mandatory timeframe. What he was opposed to was taking that information and giving it to his competitors and him having no say in that. And so I thought to myself, okay, that's what this fight's all about. He wants to control the data. He wants to be able to control where and who gets this data and how they can use it. Because I understand why he's pissed. Battle we should have had 12 years ago. You have Zillow, Redfin, Realtor, Trulia, Home, and all of these portals that take that information, make billions of dollars off your information, don't pay you anything for it, don't thank you for it. And then when you when they get a buyer for you, they turn around and try to sell the buyer back to you. So from his aspect, he puts a lot of listings through Compass and Anywhere onto the MLS only to have these companies make billions of dollars off that information, which was his information, and he doesn't make any money off of it. And then they try to sell the client back to your to his own agents. And I understand that to piss him off. I get it. I would be pissed too. The problem is the genie's out of the bottle. Can we get that genie back in the bottle? But because of the fiduciary duties we have to consumers, it may be too late. What's good for the brokerage and the fact that the brokerage stupidly gave this information away 10 or 15 years ago, it may be too late now because the consumer expects, needs, and wants the data to be on as many portals as possible in order to sell their house. Buyers want to go to those portals and have equal opportunity and equal access to all the information and don't want to have it limited. And when you start talking about federal laws when it comes to anti-competition and it comes to fair housing rules and laws and responsibilities, that consumer need, want, and desires is going to take precedent to what's good for the brokerage. And so I don't know that we can put that genie back in the bottle. But this lawsuit, this battle with MRAT, with COMPASS and Zillow, appears to be the first salvo in the actual war. We've had a Cold War going on for a while in real estate, and now this looks to be the actual war. And to me, it's sort of like the annexation of the Sudaten land in World War II. It's a great analogy, unless you're representative Elon Omar, who we call it World War XI, but it certainly is a good analogy because this is where we're now moving from this silent Cold War into actual war. The actual war is happening now in this lawsuit in Chicago. Now, if rumors and lawsuits are to be to believe, well, then according to Zillow's motion for preliminary injunction in this lawsuit against Imred and Compass, it is alleged that Robert Refkin, the Compass CEO, sent emails to multiple MLSs in the United States asking them to cut Zillow's access to their listing feeds. That is not only massive ballsy, that's a huge ballsy, but it's probably a special level of stupidity. I don't know what he was thinking. This goes back to why I dislike his tactics, because this Bull in the China shop act is going to get his company in a lot of trouble. That, to me, is the a prima facie case of anti-competition, of antitrust. When you're going to other MLSs telling them to cut your competitor out because you don't like your competitor's business practices and you want to use yours, that's a special level of stupid. And I'm afraid that's going to come back to him, and I think he's going to rue the day that he sent all those emails out to all these MLSs trying to strong arm them into not giving listings to Zillow. Clearly, what's happening here behind the scenes is Refkin wants some of that money out of Zillow. And maybe there'll be some type of settlement here in the future where Zillow agrees to put some of this money back to the brokerages they make off of the listings and all the data. I don't know. Maybe they don't. Maybe they just say it's ours and I don't care. So let's talk about what's happened so far. Start with the basics because this got very messy very fast. Mred is a major MLS in the Chicago area. It's in fact the largest MLS for Chicago, but it's one of the nation's largest. MRED stands for Midwest Real Estate Data. Compass, as y'all all know, if you've listened to this show at all, has heavily pushed private listings, exclusive listings, pre-market strategies all across the country, this whole coming soon phenomenon that is complete BS and it's not really allowed in South Carolina. Zillow is now saying that Compass and MRED are trying to strong arm them and that Zillow must either display private listings the way that Compass and MRED wants, or they're going to lose access to one of the largest MLS systems in the entire country. Zillow has taken a very aggressive stance against private listing networks. That's why this whole thing's exploded. Now, why has Zillow been so consumer friendly on the private listing networks? Because if private listing networks exist, then Zillow doesn't get the data. If Zillow doesn't get the data, they lose subscribers, they lose people looking at their information, they lose advertising dogs. So Zillow can act magnanimous as they want, but we all know the reason Zillow is so adamant against the private listing networks isn't about the consumer. It's about protecting Zillow. And protecting Zillow means protecting that data. I went and looked at HousingWire and looked at some of the things that Housing Wire has said is going on in this, because I think Housing Wire is an outstanding resource. One of Zillow's biggest arguments is that MRAD controls the primary listing database for the Chicago region and has used that power as a leverage. Zillow's lawsuit, in fact, claims that MRED is effectively the only source for comprehensive Chicago land listing data, and it's used that control to pressure Zillow to change its listing policies. Zillow's argument isn't that it's not just that it's unfair. They're saying that MRAD used monopoly power over listing data to force compliance. And that's where this whole antitrust lawsuit comes in. Zillow also claims that Compass and MRAD coordinated together to threaten Zillow's listing access unless Zillow abandoned its transparency standards. Think about that for one second here. We're now arguing about the transparency. Zillow wants it to be more transparent. Refkin and Compass does not want it to be transparent. And we're sitting here staring at the remnants of a $1.5 billion lawsuit that was largely based on transparency, transparency of fees. And now we're having an argument whether we should be less transparent. This is absolutely crazy. But this is where this antitrust lawsuit is. You either do what we want you to do or we're not going to provide you access to the monopolized information. This is important because coordinated refusals to deal with somebody, to do business with somebody can be antitrust under federal law. If we all get together as businesses and say we're not going to work with this particular mortgage company or this particular real estate agent or this particular attorney, that can become an antitrust issue. And that's where this Robert Refkin email is such a huge deal and very problematic for Compass. I mean, I literally can't understand what he was thinking, and he certainly didn't run that by his lawyers. Zillow actually uses the phrase group boycott in the lawsuit. It's basically accusing Compass and MRAD of teaming up to punish Zillow for refusing to play along with their rules. That is antitrust if it is in fact true. So Zillow has sued MRAD and they sued Compass for antitrust. Now I went to the Zillow website. I wanted to see what Zillow had to say. Keep in mind this is Zillow's position, so this is going to be very slanted toward Zillow. But Zillow says they sued MRAD and Compass for conspiring to hide home listings from buyers and restrict competition. The organization that controls Chicago's home listing rules broke the law by conspiring with the country's largest brokerage to hide listings from buyers and shut out competition. Zillow is suing to stop them from taking the conspiracy nationwide. That's what the website says. Now, obviously, MRAD has a different, whole different take on this. And MRAD countered it on their page by saying Zillow violated its data agreement by refusing to display certain valid listings. Now, what they're talking about is Zillow has certain rules that says if you don't market it to the entire public at one time, you cannot market it exclusive and then come to our website and expect it to go on there later. Either it comes out as public for everybody from the beginning or it don't get on our site at all. And so nine times they removed listings from MRAD because they were marketed in-house or exclusive or private. For a brief moment, 43,000, you heard that right, 43,000 Chicago area listings were removed, cut off from Zillow and Trulia. But that was before the federal judge came in and he they ordered MRAD to restore all the feeds. Now, according to MRAD, they say this entire dispute has nothing to do with any of the things that Zillow is saying. They're saying this is about Zillow's selective removal of the non-listings that the MLS maintained were marketed lawfully under the MLS's rules. Now, Zillow told HousingWire that none of those non-listings on MRAD's traditional MLS were even Chicago area listings. They were from that national listing service that they're now starting to try. But according to its own announcement, Zillow stance prompted MRAD to shut off its feed for 43,000 listings, which is 99.98% of the MLS inventory in Chicago from the Portal's consumer-facing platforms. The MLS-based, ML, the Illinois-based MLS said that it notified Zillow two weeks ago and said your selective excluding listings from our participating brokers violates Zillow's licensing agreement that it has with MRED, the MLS. MRED gave Zillow until midnight on May 19th, 2026, to either fix the issue or you were going to stop getting the feed. They didn't fix it, so they cut the feed. Zillow spokesperson told HousingWire that the ruling on its motion was an important first step for the Chicago homebuyer, seller, and agents who have been harmed by a coordinated scheme between MRED and COMPASS to reduce transparency in the housing market. He went on to say in the middle of a housing affordability crisis, powerful industry players collude to hide listings, suppress competition, and steer consumers toward a single dominant brokerage. Might be some truth in that. The court immediately recognized what was at stake, not just for Zillow, but for every person trying to find or sell a home across Illinois and beyond. We will continue to fight to ensure this anti-consumer conduct is not allowed to take route permanently. In other words, we need the data, because if we don't have the data, then we don't have the consumer. So therefore it's anti-consumer. We know what Zillow's true fight is here, but we also know what MRED's encompasses is. MRED, after the ruling came out, they issued their own statement saying this is a sweeping limitation of Zillow's ability to selectively exclude lawful listings based on its own business preferences. The central issue remains unchanged. Zillow wants the benefit of receiving MLS listing data while reserving the right to discriminate against certain lawful listing sellers and brokers whose marketing strategy it disfavors. A lot of truth in that statement as well. Now, the question is, do those marketing strategies cause antitrust or fair housing issues? And if they do, then I certainly believe that they have the right to say, we're not going to do it. Just not going to do it that way. But there is a lot of truth here that Zillow wants to receive the benefit of that data. They don't want to pay for it, and they want to be able to use that data the way they want. But according to MRAD, the court's ruling makes it clear that Zillow cannot ignore their license obligations and MRAD's reasonable rules, as they call them, that benefit all participants in a cooperative marketplace and undermines the value of the MLS. One could argue that's correct, but one could also argue that MRAD's reasonable rules are anti-competition and anti-fair housing. So there's also that. Now, as I stated, eventually a federal judge stepped in, as they always seem to do these days, and temporarily restored Zillow's access while this case continues to work its way through the court system. While MRAD must restore the listing feed to Zillow, Zillow's display of the listing feed, it must also include the non-MRAD listings that he had previously removed from its portal as well as any listings that were on the MLS as of May 21st. And moving forward, the judge also ruled that Zillow may not ban listings within zip codes nationwide, where MRAD has had listings between April 2025 and April 2026. At least initially, it appears that the federal judge seems very concerned and concerned enough that he's going to step in and quickly restore these listing feeds. But the damage has already been done because now the entire industry is talking about this. And quite honestly, we should be. So let's look at what COMPASS has said about this. In an email statement, the Compass International Holdings spokesperson said they were very pleased with this ruling. We are pleased that the judge said Zillow can no longer ban MRAD listings, and we are pleased that the judge denied the TRO, which is a temporary restraining order, against Compass. As Zilla's own lawyer noted in court, the judge's decision is a huge loss for Zilla, the spokesperson said. Agents and consumers should be asking themselves why Zillow is fighting so hard to ban listings. Well, they're not. They're actually trying to make people put the listings on. You're the ones trying to keep them quiet. So that's kind of a little bit of gaslighting there. The spokesperson goes on and says, because they want control of over how agents and consumers can market homes, we have a problem with that, and so does the core. Well, guys, let's be completely honest about this. This is not about how sellers want to market their homes. This is exactly about how Compass wants the sellers to market their homes and how COMPASS agents are trying to talk their sellers into marketing their homes. This isn't about sellers asking for this. We know the stats. When you have a company like EXP where they had over 300,000 transactions last year, and less than a thousand of them were done in-house, exclusive, or private, and then you have a company like Compass where 55% of all of their listings were done in-house, that tells you it's a contagion. It is literally the agents talking the sellers into doing that process. That is not natural for one agency to have less than a tenth of a percent wanting it, and then another having 55%. Obviously, the 55% is doing something to talk those consumers into doing it that way. One thing that Zillow tried to clarify after the ruling is that Zillow is allowed to continue to enforce its listing access standards outside of MRAD's territory. So this doesn't change any rules right now for you guys in South Carolina. And they also want everybody to understand they're not asking the court to compel COMPAS to change any of its behaviors or policy. Zillow's position is actually pretty simple. They are basically saying listing should be publicly available to every buyer. That's their core argument. They believe private listing networks hurt transparency and reduce buyer access, which is true. 100% true. They also should follow that up with, and Zillow needs the data to keep its website going so they can continue to make advertising dollars. One reason that this became explosive over the past couple weeks is because Compass partnered with MRED. And the partnership was so that MRED would syndicate inventory nationally through MRED's private listing network. Zillow says that suddenly turned this Chicago MLS issue into a nationwide issue, and they are correct. Now, whether or not you like Zillow, and I know a lot of you agents don't like Zillow, there is some legitimate arguments there. Because think about consumer expectation today. Consumers believe Zillow has almost everything, not literally everything, but almost all available homes. When listings are intentionally kept off of Zillow, buyers may never know the property even existed. That's Zillow's concern. And let's be honest about something. Zillow's business model depends on listings being public. The more listings consumers search, the more traffic Zillow gets, the more traffic that Zillow gets, the more advertising revenue Zillow gets. Zillow is framing this as a consumer protection issue, and the main part of it is a business protection issue. They got to protect that data. One of the most dramatic allegations in the complaint does involve Compass CEO Robert Refkin. Zillow alleges that Refkin encouraged MLSs all around the country to cut Zillow off from listing feeds if Zillow continued to enforce its transparency standards. That's a bombshell in a lawsuit because it's claiming that Compass leadership was actively encouraging MLS around the country to punish Zillow. If in fact that is true, that is a huge antitrust issue. And that's why Zillow continues to make this argument about consumers, that they're being hurt. Sellers are losing exposure, buyers are losing access, and agents are losing transparency. They keep framing that issue not as a business fight, but as a consumer issue. When listings disappear, consumers lose. Because remember, as brokerages, licensed professionals in the state of South Carolina or any other state, your duty is to the consumer and not to your brokerage and not to your broker in charge. Now, COMPAS sees this obviously very, very differently. They say sellers want to have flexibility. And honestly, on the surface, all of that sounds perfectly reasonable. Not every seller wants maximum exposure. Some want privacy, some don't want neighbors walking through their house. Some luxury sellers absolutely prefer discretion. And there are legitimate situations, as I've mentioned many a times, a criminal domestic violent victim, or if you're a member work for ICE or you work for the prison system. But I don't think anybody has seriously denied that there are those cases. But as I said earlier, EXP had 300,000 transactions worldwide last year, and less than a thousand of them asked for that. And that's where that controversy starts because the concern is whether these private listing strategies are really about seller choice or whether they're about brokerage control. And the numbers seem to tell me they're about brokerage control. Because if listings stay inside one brokerage, Brokerage ecosystem longer, who's going to benefit that? The seller? Not really. The brokerage benefits because they control more inventory. They potentially control both sides of the transaction. And they certainly potentially can use that as recruiting tools for agents with promises of exclusive inventory. If this goes to an exclusive inventory, you bet your bottom dollar. That's what Compass is going to be marketing and advertise. Join us so you get access to this exclusive inventory. Of course, don't forget, on their website, and I did a whole podcast on this, when they were trying to talk sellers into doing private listings, they were saying that you could get top dollar because they have these exclusive private buyers already pre-approved. But then when you went to the buyer page, and while you should shop inside their exclusive listings, they were saying you could save thousands of dollars by not getting into a costly bidding war. So which is it? The sellers are going to make more money or the buyers are going to save more money. It can't be both. It cannot be both. And that's why people, I think, are starting to get really nervous. I saw an article this week written by the, I think it's pronounced CERTI team, C Y R T E. They're out of Pennsylvania. And according to that article, they said that Compass's Q4 SEC earnings filing showed that 55% of all new COMPASS listings in February 2025 started as private exclusives or coming soon, never reaching the MLS on day one. 55%, guys, that's in, and that's in February 2025 before they even pushed it further. I bet you that number is even higher. Bright MLS, which is an independent MLS, they said their research found that 87% of listings that started private still wind up having to go to the full MLS. And when you read those two numbers together, the private phase, in the vast majority of the cases, did not produce a sale. What it produced was a window of time during which the brokerage searches for its own buyer before outside agents and their buyers can compete. And the article said when that internal search succeeds, the brokerage earns both sides of the commission. When it fails, according to the article, the seller absorbs the cost. The new listing urgency window is spent. Some buyers have already passed. And home, the home enters the open market without a clean start date. That is not service to the seller. It's a first right of refusal for the brokerage. I've never heard it called that. I think that's brilliant. Before agreeing to it, there are questions worth asking, not because the recommendation is necessarily wrong, but because the answers will tell you whether it serves your interest in the highest sales price or the brokerage's interest in controlling both sides of the transaction. What an outstanding article written by this team. CYRTE team, it's a Pennsylvania team. Now to understand why this is such a big deal, we need to talk about clear cooperation. A few years ago, NAR implemented the clear cooperation policy. The idea was very simple. If you publicly market a property, you have to put in the MLS within a certain timeframe. The policy was designed to stop the explosion of pocket listings because there was a concern that listings were becoming hidden from some consumers and from some cooperating brokers. Now recently, NAR had a little bit more flexibility with delayed marketing options. And that's where this thing started changing again. Because now you can have a listing in the MLS while delaying syndication or public display. And honestly, that's where these things get very blurry. What exactly counts as public marketing? I can tell you from a South Carolina standpoint, the day you start marketing it to anybody, any human being, is public marketing. What counts as exclusive? We don't have exclusives in South Carolina. What counts as seller choice? What counts as inventory hoarding? And what does that say about everyone that's fighting over this stuff? And honestly, I think the real issue is this. Who does the listing belong to? Does it belong to the seller, the brokerage, the MLS, or the portal? Because everyone thinks they own it. The seller thinks it's my house. The brokers think, well, I earn the listing of the listing agreement. The MLS, we agree to our rules. It's our IDX fee. Zillow thinks consumers expect that transparency and want to be on our page. And the buyer thinks to themselves, if it's a house for sale, then I should be able to see it and I shouldn't have to fight over this. That's why this fight matters so much, and that's why it's going to touch every part of this industry moving forward. So let me give you my opinion. I do think sellers should have options. I absolutely believe they are legitimate reasons for private marketing. If you're a Dabo Sweeney, when you get fired this year, you don't want all these Gamecock fans walking through your house. I get that. Hell, it's going to probably happen to Shane too, so it's not selective at Clemson over Carolina. But I also think agents have an obligation to fully explain the downside. Here is the reality. Less exposure usually means fewer buyers. Fewer buyers means fewer offers. Fewer offers means less leverage. Less leverage mostly means less money. It's just economics, guys. Not brain science. Can a private strategy work in some situations? I just said so, absolutely. But agents need to stop presenting private marketing like it's an automatically some elite luxury strategy. Sometimes it's necessary. Sometimes, and most often, it's just limited exposure for the benefit of the brokerage. And here's another uncomfortable issue that nobody wants to talk about fair housing. I've talked about it multiple times, so we'll do it really quickly today. Historically, one criticism of private listing networks is that they do reduce equal access to housing opportunities. Now, I'm not saying every private listing strategy is discriminatory. I'm not saying that at all. But when access becomes relationship-based, network-based, brokerage-based, you can absolutely create concerns about unequal access. And that's where regulators start paying attention. So what should agents do now? Number one, understand South Carolina law. You may not market property internally or externally to any human being whatsoever without a signed listing agreement, period. If you don't have a signed listing agreement, you don't have a coming soon. You cannot advertise something that's coming soon without a listing agreement. Once you have a listing agreement, guess what? That property is now available for everybody. So it's not coming soon. It's already gotten there. Quit advertising coming soon. It is a made-up term that's going to get you sued because it's not coming soon. It should be available to everybody. Once you take that listing agreement, you are required to present any offer that you receive to your client. And you may not deny access to other people. You start denying access to certain people based on whether your brokerage is related to that transaction or not, is where you're going to get sued. Number two, educate all your sellers. You need to explain all these options. Explain public marketing. What's delayed marketing? What's an office exclusive? What is it, syndication? What is the IDX feed and how does that work? Explain consequences. Don't just say this is our luxury strategy. We'll help you test the market. You ain't testing anything. Explain the trade-offs honestly. You can't do it honestly. If you have to obfuscate and try to hide things, then you already know what the answer is. Number three, document seller decisions. If for some reason a seller does choose limited exposure because perhaps they work at the prison or they work at uh drug rehab or something of that nature, get her in writing because one day, if the seller sells at home for less than expected, you do not want the argument becoming, well, nobody explain the downside of this exclusive listing to me. Number four, understand your MLS rules because these rules are changing fast, and brokers who ignore these policies and the policy changes are going to get themselves in trouble with the MLS. Number five, be prepared to defend your actions and your choice before the real estate commission. I had an agent last week who reached out to me. She's ready to turn an agent in for what was called a brokerage preview. The agent told her that their broker said, let them file complaints. She said only buyer clients of brokerages can view the property or unrepresented buyers who are there with only the listing agent present. Well, guess what? Let them file complaints, he's gonna get his wish. Go ahead and do that. And I don't think he's gonna like the outcome. Why does this matter in South Carolina? If you're a South Carolina listen to this podcast and you're thinking this is Chicago, it's not me. This is coming everywhere. Every MLS in America is watching this lawsuit, every brokerage in this country is watching this lawsuit, every portal is watching this, and honestly, every state is eventually gonna have to face these same questions. How much control should brokerages have over the listing exposure? How much transparency should consumers expect? And where does seller choice end and market manipulation begin? That's the big one. You will start seeing legislation on this. We're already seeing it around the country. States' houses are taking this up, real estate commissions are also looking at it. At the end of the day, the fight is not really about Zillow. It's not really about Compass or MRED. It's about the future structure of residential real estate. Are we gonna have one marketplace or are we gonna have a controlled access marketplace? Are we gonna have broad exposure or selective exposure? Are we gonna have public inventory or private ecosystems? And the answer to that question is going to shape this industry for years to come. So, agents, pay attention because this isn't just a lawsuit. This is a preview, preview to what's gonna happen in our marketplace. All right, everybody, that's all the time we have for our episode of Dish and Dirt today. Please share it with another agent because I promise you this conversation is going to continue to come up in every market in America. Hope you enjoyed our show this week. Y'all come back again next week. Please like us, subscribe, and share. And please click that button if you're watching us on YouTube because if you give us thumbs up and subscribe to it, that will help the algorithm put it out to more people. All right, y'all have a great weekend, and we'll see you again next week.