Reffkin contends that sellers should have the option to market their homes more discreetly or to test the market through "private exclusives" without the pressure of a public "days on market" clock. He argues that the MLS rules essentially dictate how a private firm and its agents must compete, which he views as an overreach.
However, Dwiggins noted a fundamental irony in this argument: the vast majority of home sellers eventually become home buyers. "I think people forget that over 70% of sellers are also buyers and they are going to want to know data like days on market or price history," Dwiggins said. "You don’t get to be like, ‘Well, I’m hiding that information, but I want to see it from everybody else.’ It doesn’t work that way."
Furthermore, Compass has claimed that MLS boards are often comprised of its direct competitors, suggesting a conflict of interest in how rules are drafted and enforced. This claim has been met with skepticism from other leaders. Bess Freedman pointed out that Compass itself, along with the many firms it has acquired, often has representatives sitting on these very boards. "All parties entered into the MLS agreements and set the rules in the spirit of a cooperative marketplace," she noted.
Alternative Perspectives: The Data Company Model
Not every voice in the industry is entirely opposed to the Compass position. Phillip Cantrell, broker-owner of Tennessee-based Benchmark Realty, suggested that while the MLS is vital, some organizations may have overstepped their bounds by becoming "rule enforcement arms."
Cantrell’s firm operates within the footprint of Realtracs, an MLS that has chosen not to enforce mandatory listing submission rules. "A couple of years ago, the Realtracs board and leadership wisely recognized they are a data company and [policy enforcement] was not an argument they wanted to step into," Cantrell said. He argued that if more MLSs focused strictly on being data providers rather than policing the marketing strategies of their members, the current legal friction might have been avoided.
From Cantrell’s viewpoint, the aggressive defense of policies like Clear Cooperation is less about maintaining a level playing field and more about "maintaining the power broker network of the national, state and local associations."
Compass Defends Its Position
In response to the mounting criticism, Compass has maintained that its goal is to provide more choices, not to destroy the system. A spokesperson for the company told HousingWire that Compass listings remain publicly available on the company’s own website or by contacting an agent, regardless of whether the buyer is represented by a Compass agent.
The spokesperson further argued that it is actually the MLS rules that force listings to be "private" by punishing agents who use alternative public marketing channels. They refuted the idea that their strategy would fragment the market, noting that in the modern era, "people don’t shop for everything in one store," and that artificial intelligence is already making it easier for buyers to find properties across disparate platforms.
"Agents should be free to compete on the marketing strategies they offer," the spokesperson said, adding that no other industry forces sellers of a good to publicly disclose how long an item has been for sale or how many times the price has been reduced.
As the industry waits for the legal system to weigh in on the suit against CRMLS, the divide remains deep. On one side stands a vision of a centralized, cooperative data exchange that ensures transparency for all; on the other stands a call for individual marketing freedom and the right of a brokerage to leverage its own scale. Whether these two visions can coexist, or if the conflict will indeed lead to the "mass destruction" some fear, remains the defining question for the future of American real estate.
