The strangest part of the fight over private real estate listings is not that powerful companies are fighting for control of valuable inventory. That is business.
It’s that what is too rarely said plainly is that consumer benefits and corporate benefits can coexist, and sometimes conflict.
Compass calls its private listing strategy “seller choice.” Zillow describes its listing rules as a defense of consumer transparency. Public messaging from both sides emphasizes the consumer benefits of their positions while giving less attention to the enormous economic value of controlling where listings appear, who sees them and who captures the resulting customer.
Now the fight is escalating again. Compass says it has filed ethics complaints against Zillow spanning 26 states, 55 multiple listing services and 30 Realtor associations, alleging false advertising related to how Zillow displays certain active listings.
But the consumer should not be a weapon in a corporate battle.
There is nothing inherently improper about a company defending its business model. Compass benefits from making private and phased marketing a prominent option. Exclusive inventory can attract clients and agents, strengthen its network and help it manage customer relationships.
That does not mean Compass keeps every listing private. Its own disclosure gives sellers the option to proceed directly to the MLS and the broader public market. The relevant question is not whether Compass ever recommends full exposure. It is whether the company’s promotion of a private-first model influences how the available choices are presented.
Zillow benefits from having the broadest possible inventory available on its platform. More listings attract more consumers, producing more traffic, leads and revenue.
Zillow’s standards also make room for genuinely private circumstances. Under specified conditions, they permit one-to-one sharing within the listing brokerage when a seller has chosen not to market publicly. The restrictions principally target listings marketed publicly but made available only behind a registration wall or through a particular brokerage. Those rules can still make a listing ineligible for Zillow later if its earlier marketing did not comply.
Those incentives and preferences do not automatically make either company’s position wrong. But consumers deserve to hear the whole sentence: “We believe this is good for you, and here is how it benefits us.”
Instead, complex questions are being reduced to appealing slogans.
“Seller choice” sounds indisputably pro-consumer. Sellers absolutely should have choices. Some may have legitimate reasons to limit exposure. A public figure may prioritize privacy or security. An owner may want to test interest discreetly. A seller of an unusual property may prefer a targeted introduction to the market.
But the existence of valid exceptions does not establish that private marketing is broadly in sellers’ best interests, or that it should be the preferred starting point for every seller.
In a recent column, real estate attorney and broker Bruce Ailion argued that fiduciary duty requires more than offering sellers a menu of options. He wrote that it includes the disclosure of material facts and conflicts so the seller can evaluate the risks and benefits of each option. We agree with that principle.
That does not mean a seller should be prohibited from choosing privacy. It means the seller must understand the potential benefits, limitations and costs of that decision.
Before agreeing to private marketing, sellers should know who will and will not be able to see the property; how reduced exposure could affect competition, price and time to sell; what financial or strategic benefits the brokerage may receive; and what happens if they later want broader public distribution.
Consent obtained without a candid discussion of those considerations may satisfy a paperwork requirement, but it does not necessarily represent an informed decision.
But disclosure is only the beginning. A brokerage’s responsibility is not fulfilled merely by adding another form to a file. The firm’s incentives, policies and culture must allow agents to recommend what is best for each client, even when that recommendation does not advance the brokerage’s preferred strategy.
Our view is simpler: A brokerage exists to support its people so they can best serve their clients. It should not turn agents and clients into instruments of a corporate campaign. The right marketing plan begins with the needs of the individual seller. It does not begin with a predetermined preference for where inventory should live.
Some sellers need privacy. Others need immediate, broad exposure. Still others may benefit from a phased approach. Most need an experienced agent who can explain the alternatives without being pressured to steer the listing toward whichever option makes the brokerage’s network, platform or balance sheet more valuable.
Supporting agents means trusting their judgment. They should not be turned into foot soldiers in a battle between corporate platforms.
Zillow’s position deserves scrutiny too. Buyers benefit when they can see the full range of publicly marketed homes, and sellers generally benefit when their properties reach the widest pool of qualified buyers. Open access can strengthen competition, improve price discovery and reduce the possibility that housing opportunities circulate primarily among insiders.
But Zillow is not a public utility. It is a business with its own economic interests and considerable market influence. A policy that promotes transparency may also protect Zillow’s position as a primary destination for home searches.
Recognizing that does not negate the consumer benefits of broad access. It simply means Zillow’s interests should be examined with the same rigor applied to the brokerages it criticizes.
The central question is not which company has found the better slogan. It is what produces the best outcome for the individual consumer.
That requires evidence, disclosure and a willingness to acknowledge tradeoffs. If private marketing is best for a particular seller, the facts should demonstrate it. If immediate public exposure is likely to generate greater competition and a better price, the facts should demonstrate that too. If a phased strategy serves the seller’s circumstances, it should remain an available option.
An agent’s recommendation should begin with the client’s needs, not a company’s preferred distribution strategy.
There is a straightforward test for every “consumer-first” claim: Would the company recommend the same course if it offered no competitive or financial advantage, or if the client’s best option benefited a rival?
Companies can make money while creating genuine value for consumers. But when a company’s interests and its client’s interests diverge, its principles are tested. A brokerage’s responsibility is to give agents the freedom and clients the information to choose among privacy, phased marketing and immediate public exposure, not to steer a listing toward the option that creates the greatest strategic value for the brokerage when a different course would better serve the seller.
The companies that deserve consumers’ trust will be those willing to recommend what is best for the client, even when another choice would be better for the company.
Consumers should be at the center of this debate. They should be the point, not the talking point.
For more information, visit https://www.bhsusa.com/.
