One day after Compass’s deadline for MLSs to change rules or get sued, another listing service is defying the mega-brokerage, with Texas-based Unlock MLS alleging Compass mischaracterizes its rules—and has also privately praised those same policies before threatening litigation.
In a letter from Ellen Sessions, a lawyer representing Unlock, addressed to Compass and dated Oct. 6, Sessions claimed that Compass has offered an entirely incorrect description of how it enforces rules around marketing off-MLS listings.
That letter also pointed to a communication from the brokerage in which it said Unlock MLS is “the place where seller choice lives,” and claimed Compass was actually involved and endorsed its rules before later claiming they violate antitrust laws.
Compass has demanded MLSs that disallow agents from marketing listings off-MLS cease enforcing those rules, threatening to sue the ones who do not.
“Compass cannot hold Unlock MLS up as a model of seller choice in March and threaten it with an antitrust lawsuit for denying seller choice in September,” Sessions wrote.
Unlock’s pushback—publishing its back-and-forth with Compass on its website, as well as a blog post from CEO Emily Girard decrying the threat of litigation—comes after CRMLS issued a similar response last week, launching an “MLS Cooperation Legal Defense Fund” and promising to fight Compass inside and outside the court.
Compass has promised to push forward with pressure and legal action against MLSs that don’t allow agents to withhold listings from the MLS while publicly marketing them elsewhere, claiming rules that disallow this are illegal and designed to protect MLSs. It argues that sellers and agents should be the only ones who dictate how a property is marketed.
At the same time, the brokerage has continued to grow its share of exclusive listings—either “Coming Soon” or held privately and only available to those who contact agents—and MLSs (and some brokerage leaders) have accused Compass of waging a cynical campaign to grow its market power and revenue.
What they said
Girard wrote on social media that Compass’s threat “isn’t a debate over one rule, and it isn’t only about the NAR Clear Cooperation Policy.”
“It’s a demand that we ignore a rule altogether, leaving it on the books while acting as if it isn’t there. That strikes at the very structure of the MLS,” she said.
Girard added in a blog post that “(o)ur door has been and remains open to Compass, Inc.,” noting that Compass is “one of our largest customers.”
“(W)e regret that it has chosen the threat of a lawsuit when we’ve worked hard to provide the tools our marketplace needs to serve Central Texas buyers and sellers. We would far rather invest your dollars in serving you than in a courtroom,” Girard wrote.
Girard also shared Compass’s letter to Unlock—seemingly one of many identical letters that went out to MLSs on Sept. 8—in which the brokerage accused Unlock of fining and threatening to expel agents for publicly marketing properties off-MLS.
Sessions, in her Oct. 6 letter, noted that Unlock’s rules are much more nuanced, with no provision to suspend or terminate an agent for violating those rules—though members can be suspended for not paying an assessed fine, she acknowledged.
But the process is very slow, with a $100 fine and “no further compliance action” if that is paid. Only if that is not paid and an agent ignores repeated reminders can the MLS fine up to $500 for publicly marketing a listing without submitting to the MLS, according to Sessions.
Sessions also seemed to say that paying the $100 fine freed up agents to market outside the MLS, writing that “a seller may exclude a listing from mass dissemination through the MLS by signed certification and timely payment of the $100 fine.”
A Compass International Holdings spokesperson highlighted that language, saying that Unlock “seems to agree” that agents and sellers “should be able to publicly market a property as the homeowner instructs.
“The seller and the agent don’t work for Unlock MLS. There should be no obligation to pay $100 to publicly market as the homeowner wants,” the spokesperson said.
Unlock declined to comment or share any additional information.
The big picture
Sessions, in her letter, also touted Unlock MLS’s “Flex Listing” program, which allows listings to be “privately marketed” within the MLS, not accruing days on market or price drop—something that was previously central to Compass’s criticism of MLS rules, but has not been mentioned in this most recent clash.
Compass agents are “currently leading adoption (of Flex Listings),” according to Sessions, and she accused Compass once again of saying something very differently in private before bringing litigation threats.
“Compass knows Flex well because Compass helped shape it. Before launch, Unlock MLS participated in multiple meetings with Compass at the corporate level for the specific purpose of seeking its feedback on the concept of Flex,” Sessions claimed. “In those meetings, Compass assured Unlock MLS that it had developed an innovative solution that would meet the needs of agents.”
CRMLS made a similar accusation, saying that only months ago its leaders sat down with Compass CEO Robert Reffkin and tweaked rules around Coming Soon listings, which Reffkin praised before turning around and threatening to sue.
For its part, Compass Reffkin have framed the broader issue as MLSs dictating rules to brokers and agents, with a company spokesperson telling RISMedia last week that Compass sees MLSs as a group of competitors working together to maintain their power.
In her letter and social media post, Girard sought to distance the dispute from the everyday business of the MLS, saying she “won’t let it become a divide between Unlock MLS and the agents who serve Central Texas…including the many talented Compass agents who are a valued part of this market.”
“The rules of this marketplace should be shaped by the agents and brokers who built it, through collaboration and compromise, not dictated by the threat of litigation,” Girard added.
