On the Market Podcast - Got it wrong - Lawsuit - Compass v. NWMLS
That sums up the last 10 minutes of the recent On the Market podcast. It's unfortunate, as @Dave Meyer is usually well researched and knowledgeable.
Ensuring a listing is advertised as much as possible benefits the public. Limited advertising helps the pro's. If Company A has a listing and can double end the deal, why would they "give up" half the commission and advertise to Company B to bring a buyer? Does that help or hurt the public? In 2025, we understand marketing mostly means on-line syndications, which is a core feature of MLS's. Yard signs and other activities have limited impact related to selling a property. Anyone who ever used websites like Zillow or Redfin or to find a home, or conduct market research (@Dave Meyer - looking at you!) benefits from this marketing.
In the recent On the Market podcast (which is the best Podcast BP has right now), guest James brought up the Compass v. NWMLS lawsuit. It's clear that James and others don't know their history, or don't care. During the discussion, James was openly braggadocios about breaking the NWMLS rules and paying fines. According to James, Compass considered similar fines for breaking rules to be a cost of doing business and kept violating rules. Now Compass and NWMLS are heading to court.
This stems from NWMLS requiring all licensees to enter their listing into the MLS in a timely manner. I'm not a member of the NWMLS, but the MLS I am a member of has a similar rule. These rules exist because of historical problems like redlining and other abhorrent behaviors designed to limit housing access to a select few. That's why "pocket listings" and "coming-soon" are generally not allowed in many MLSs. Ensuring a listing is advertised as widely as possible benefits the public, which is a core function of any MLS.
Another concern is double-ending transactions. Pocket listings benefit the agent or broker, as they receive the entire commission if they don't have to advertise publicly and can keep transactions in-house. Most retail buyers or sellers do not understand what happens in a transaction, and do not benefit from one agent “representing” both sides. It's like an attorney representing the plaintiff and defendant!
Ultimately, retail buyers and sellers benefit from a system encouraging a (mostly) level playing field and competition. Pocket listings encourage backroom deals, which might work for investors and pros, but not for most Americans simply buying or selling a home. Put a closing statement in front of an average buyer or seller, usually all they understand is the bottom line and trust/hope that their agent has helped them.
James argues that property owners should be able to sell their homes however they want. I agree. If sellers want the best price, that implies participating in the retail marketplace, with retail rules. If they don't want to participate in a fair, public market, they should call a wholesaler, not a real estate agent, or sell FSBO.
There are always exceptions (Dave mentioned one), and no set of rules is perfect. However, Dave and James would do well to remember that a mostly functional system creating a level playing field is better than one (or a few) companies having outsized influence and limiting housing to a select few.
The weak argument made during the discussion about a free market appears to be a red herring. It appears, this guest prefers pocket listings and wants to stick it to the NWMLS for fining their own bad behavior. Watch the last 10 minutes of the podcast with that in mind and see what conclusion you reach.
