What’s a Broker, Anyway?

The Industry Relations Podcast is now available on your favorite podcast player!

Overview

Rob and Greg open by unpacking the news that a federal judge has finally approved the Sitzer/Burnett settlement, tossing out remaining objections — officially closing that chapter for NAR and the industry. They debate whether this outcome was a “win” for NAR, discuss the power vacuum left in organized real estate’s wake, and praise NAR’s recent social media/PR efforts (specifically an Instagram explainer video). The bulk of the episode digs into Unlock MLS’s new tiered participant framework (base service, direct service brokerage, platform brokerage) — sparked by an op-ed from Emily Gerrard — and what it means to legally and philosophically define “what is a broker” in a post-compensation, post-NAR-settlement world. Rob and Greg spar over whether MLSs should double down on being cooperatives of brokerages or pivot to being data-licensing utilities, using Zillow, Homes.com, and hypotheticals (including an adult-content site and a NJ lead-gen “broker”) as test cases.

Key Takeaways

The Sitzer/Burnett settlement has been fully approved after the 8th Circuit rejected remaining objections
NAR reportedly told lawyers to negotiate the maximum settlement amount it could actually afford, effectively avoiding insolvency
Rob argues NAR is no longer the center of gravity in real estate, leaving a “power vacuum” in the industry
Both hosts praised a recent NAR Instagram explainer (legal/stats update) as a strong new-media format worth other associations copying
Rob floats the idea of NAR/MLS leadership doing authentic, unscripted weekly podcasts or livestreams to rebuild member trust
Unlock MLS introduced a new three-tier participant structure: base service, direct service brokerage, and platform brokerage
Emily Gerrard’s op-ed on Real Estate News argues participant definitions should be reframed around data usage rather than identity
Rob strongly supports Unlock’s move, calling it the biggest MLS innovation in decades; Greg is more skeptical of redefining “participant” and prefers a pure data-licensing approach
They debate whether Zillow, Homes.com, and similar platforms should be treated as “brokers” vs. licensed data users
Rob predicts Unlock will likely face a lawsuit over the new rules but believes they’d win
The 2008 DOJ/VOW settlement is revisited as historical context for why MLS participant rules can’t discriminate by business model
Discussion touches on AI/data governance, referencing a framework around who controls AI’s access to listing data
Episode closes with a running bet: Rob wagers Greg a steak dinner that fewer than 1% of brokers would define a broker as “a website that generates leads”

Links

Cooperation Article

NAR Social Media Post

Sitzer Settlement

Connect with Rob and Greg

Rob’s Website

Greg’s Website

Watch us on YouTube

Our Sponsors:

Cotality

Notorious VIP

The Giant Steps Job Board

Production and Editing Services by Sunbound Studios

Josh

August 21, 2026 at 8:46 am

I mentioned to Greg the other day that, given the topics covered and how important they are to the MLS community and this blog’s readership, it was a bummer not to see more discussion in the comments. So here’s my two cents

I agree this needs to be discussed, but when you consider the business models of 100K+ brokerages in the US, I think the term “actively endeavoring” does a pretty good job. What Unlock is proposing isn’t novel; it’s just an updated way of enforcing what already exists. A “participant” is already defined: someone who actively endeavors to complete real estate transactions. That’s the test. You don’t have to list/buy a house to be actively endeavoring – most of the MLS membership consists of agents holding their license for those occasional family deals. Anyway, it’s not a business-model question, and it doesn’t need a new category for every flavor of company that shows up wanting data.

Data is easy too. There’s data you can put on the internet. There’s data you can’t put on the internet (Back Office Feed). And there’s the rule that sits underneath both: you can’t recommercialize MLS data. Three buckets, done.
What Rob isn’t factoring in is state-level licensing. A broker or agent license is what you need to collect compensation for brokerage services, not MLS data access. And the law doesn’t dictate how you’re allowed to charge for that work. I think if you’re trying to define what a broker is, that will leak into what a brokerage is, and ultimately you’re back in 2008, with the government making up the rules.

Also, for anyone that’s been in this space for more than a decade, the idea of an MLS selling data (which is what is happening) was insane in 2015. The battle of profit sharing is going to be interesting, especially when 20% of brokerages are responsible for 90% of all the listings inputted – actually, 90% of listings are created by 20% of agents, and if the brokerage is getting reimbursed, that will need to funnel down to the agent. Some of the fees proposed by MLS’s to licensed brokerages for data feeds exceed 15-20K per year – for something that cost $500 the year before.

Josh

August 21, 2026 at 8:46 am

I mentioned to Greg the other day that, given the topics covered and how important they are to the MLS community and this blog’s readership, it was a bummer not to see more discussion in the comments. So here’s my two cents

I agree this needs to be discussed, but when you consider the business models of 100K+ brokerages in the US, I think the term “actively endeavoring” does a pretty good job. What Unlock is proposing isn’t novel; it’s just an updated way of enforcing what already exists. A “participant” is already defined: someone who actively endeavors to complete real estate transactions. That’s the test. You don’t have to list/buy a house to be actively endeavoring – most of the MLS membership consists of agents holding their license for those occasional family deals. Anyway, it’s not a business-model question, and it doesn’t need a new category for every flavor of company that shows up wanting data.

Data is easy too. There’s data you can put on the internet. There’s data you can’t put on the internet (Back Office Feed). And there’s the rule that sits underneath both: you can’t recommercialize MLS data. Three buckets, done.
What Rob isn’t factoring in is state-level licensing. A broker or agent license is what you need to collect compensation for brokerage services, not MLS data access. And the law doesn’t dictate how you’re allowed to charge for that work. I think if you’re trying to define what a broker is, that will leak into what a brokerage is, and ultimately you’re back in 2008, with the government making up the rules.

Also, for anyone that’s been in this space for more than a decade, the idea of an MLS selling data (which is what is happening) was insane in 2015. The battle of profit sharing is going to be interesting, especially when 20% of brokerages are responsible for 90% of all the listings inputted – actually, 90% of listings are created by 20% of agents, and if the brokerage is getting reimbursed, that will need to funnel down to the agent. Some of the fees proposed by MLS’s to licensed brokerages for data feeds exceed 15-20K per year – for something that cost $500 the year before.

Share this: