If you spend any amount of time these days following real estate news—or more accurately, the endless chorus of industry pundits—you might start to believe the sky is falling. The debates swirling around MLS participation rules, commission lawsuits, and the rise of Private Listing Networks (PLNs) have triggered no shortage of doomsday scenarios, public handwringing, and self-appointed experts forecasting the demise of cooperative real estate as we know it. As I have repeatedly said to anyone who asks, I completely understand both sides of this discussion.
The noise volume is high, making the stakes feel huge. And yet, as with so many things in business, this moment really comes down to something far simpler: the difference between reaction and response.
Make no mistake—how you approach that difference will very likely determine whether you emerge from these industry shifts stronger and more relevant or stuck defending a business model that no longer serves the client.
The reflexive Instinct to react
Let’s start with a definition: a reaction is emotional. It’s the immediate surge of fear, outrage, or defensiveness that flares up when something new challenges the status quo. We’re seeing plenty of that right now.
For example, as CCP rules and therefore MLS cooperation come under pressure, some industry voices have reacted by painting scenarios where all transparency vanishes, all cooperation collapses, and chaos rules. Seemingly, the underlying assumption is that any deviation from current MLS policy is an existential threat.
On the other end of the spectrum, as companies like Compass, The Agency, and others lean into Private Listing Networks, many of those same voices react with claims of backroom dealing, reduced access for buyers, or thinly veiled accusations of market manipulation. Shades of John D. Rockefeller no doubt.
Pundits love reactions. They make for better headlines, social media debates, conference panel soundbites, and clicks. But what reactions rarely offer is any real path forward. They serve primarily to stoke fear and defend existing power structures, often the very ones whose relevance is being questioned.
The deliberate discipline to respond
By contrast, a response requires discipline. It requires us to take a breath, sift through the actual facts, and chart a course that serves both our business and the consumer’s interest—not simply institutional self-preservation.
How about we respond, instead of just reacting.
First, let’s acknowledge: the MLS remains a valuable tool. Cooperation, broad exposure, and equal access have been hallmarks of organized real estate for decades. In many ways, the MLS has been one of the single greatest innovations our industry has ever produced.
But we must also acknowledge: the MLS was never intended to be the only way. For years—long before anyone coined the term Private Listing Network—there have always been mechanisms for privacy-conscious sellers: what most MLS systems call “Exempt” listings. Divorce, financial distress, public profiles—there are valid reasons some sellers may choose limited exposure. And CCP contains allowances for such needs.
The current wave of PLNs simply offers an additional layer: not only exempting listings for privacy but allowing sellers to choose between private or public marketing as part of their strategy. Done properly—with full disclosure, informed client consent, and fiduciary responsibility, it’s not a threat to transparency. It’s a tailored service.
Reactionary pundits vs. thoughtful leaders
Let’s bring some concrete examples into view:
The reaction camp: “PLNs will destroy cooperation!” “Buyers will lose access to inventory!” “This will create secretive insider markets that hurt the consumer!” “The entire MLS system is unraveling!”
These are fear-based reactions, driven largely by those who have grown dependent on the MLS as the single gateway to data—and often, revenue.
The thoughtful response: “Consumers deserve informed choices on how their property is marketed.” “Agents have a duty to present all options—whether full MLS exposure or a strategic private marketing plan—based on that specific client’s needs.” “Brokerages can honor both cooperation and client autonomy without sacrificing ethics.” “Market competition—not institutional mandates—will determine which models serve consumers best.”
Enter Zillow: A masterclass in self-Interest reaction
And then there’s Zillow.
Zillow has now stated that any broker who engages in a Private Listing Network—or even simply exercises the option to withhold certain listings from public MLS feeds—will have those listings permanently banned from Zillow’s platform. Really?
Let’s be perfectly clear—and this comment will undoubtedly ruffle some feathers: Zillow’s move is not some high-minded defense of transparency. It’s a reaction designed to protect Zillow’s own business interests. Zillow’s existence is almost entirely dependent on MLS data feeds. The more listings that exist outside the MLS system, the more Zillow’s dominance and monetization model are threatened. Of course they could pivot, but why go through that pain when fear and intimidation are options?
By banning non-MLS listings from their platform, Zillow is effectively attempting to punish brokers who provide clients with a choice—thereby strong-arming the industry into preserving Zillow’s access to inventory. It’s not about consumer protection; it’s about data control. Full stop.
The bigger picture
All of this noise can make it easy to forget a simple truth: the client must remain at the center of every conversation.
If a seller desires maximum public exposure, the MLS remains the most efficient vehicle to achieve that. If a seller requires discretion, or wishes to explore targeted private marketing first, they should have the freedom to make that choice with the full counsel of their agent. It’s the client’s choice.
Our job as professionals is not to preserve outdated structures simply because they have historically served certain business models. Nor is it our job to push new structures simply because we are mad at the status quo. Our job is to serve our clients with clarity, honesty and flexibility, whether that means leveraging the MLS, Private Listing Networks or both.
The market will evolve. Lawsuits will continue. Regulatory changes will come. The loudest voices will keep reacting from fear. But those who calmly assess, thoughtfully respond and keep the client’s interest paramount will emerge stronger.
Reaction belongs to the arena of pundits. Response belongs to the arena of professionals. We need to stop the public displays of ripping each other apart. It’s making our industry look worse than it already does to a consumer who does not and cannot ever grasp the full details.
