When “transparency” becomes a weapon

Not long ago, Zillow led the charge into iBuying, buying homes from sellers directly, often at steep discounts. Many large brokers followed suit to compete, launching their own offerings. These were one-on-one transactions with zero exposure to the open market. The justification? “Convenience.” It was fine, we were told, because sellers knew what they were getting into and there were disclosures if they didn’t.

Fast forward to today, and some of the same players now declare that listing a home anywhere but the MLS is dangerous. So dangerous, in fact, that they block those listings from their platforms entirely.

How did we go from “it’s fine to advertise to one buyer” to “if your home isn’t exposed to every buyer, it’s malpractice”?

The answer isn’t transparency. It’s economics.

Zillow earns billions through referral fees, up to 40% of an agent’s commission, by controlling lead flow from the MLS. Private listing networks (PLNs) threaten that funnel. So the message has changed. What was once a legitimate consumer choice is now framed as a public danger.

To be clear, selling a home off-MLS can mean fewer buyers and lower offers. But here’s the thing: sellers already understand that. eXp Realty, one of the largest brokerages in the country, created a one-page disclosure that clearly outlines the risks of limited exposure. It’s simple, straightforward, and readable at a high school level. It was widely lauded by the industry’s largest players as a great step to protect consumers.

My teenage daughter gets it. She knows that if she wants top dollar, she’ll sell on Depop which she prefers for its perfectly targeted teen audience, not at a garage sale. But sometimes, she still chooses the simplicity of a local sale. Less hassle, quicker outcome and no fees. Should I scold my daughter for leaving money on the table? Should we mandate that she also pay to list on eBay because it has a larger audience and more name recognition than Depop?

Let’s consider the industry stance on dual agency. This is arguably one of the most structurally conflicted relationships in real estate, and yet, it remains legal in many states. The industry’s solution? A simple disclosure form.

Even though dual agency forces agents to step back from fully advocating for either party and often leads to vague, compromised negotiations where “meeting in the middle” replaces aggressive representation, the disclosure is sufficient. Why? Because it often doubles commissions. 

To be fair, not all intra-brokerage deals present this kind of conflict. Many firms use designated agency models where each party has a separate representative. But if the industry is comfortable relying on a disclosure for something this structurally complex, why isn’t the same standard acceptable for a seller deciding how broadly to market their home?

When competition enters the picture, such as listing outside the MLS, the public is suddenly too naive to understand the risks. That’s not transparency. That’s a double standard.

What’s rarely discussed is that the industry doesn’t just restrict where agents can list, it confiscates the most valuable asset in every transaction: the data.

In other platform economies (Facebook, YouTube, even retail media) creators exchange their data or content for meaningful benefits: reach, monetization, or free access. In real estate, agents are told the same thing: give us your listing data, and in return, you’ll get exposure. But here’s the difference – agents also pay for the privilege. They fund the MLS through dues, then watch their data flow to portals and platforms that monetize it again, often through referral fees that further reduce their earnings.

If the data is this valuable, why aren’t agents sharing in the upside? Why can’t they choose platforms that reward their contribution, or pass along savings to their clients? Instead of being empowered participants in the data economy, agents are treated as vendors feeding a system they’re also forced to subsidize.

Some in the industry now want the MLS codified into law, a “utility” in name only, without oversight, price regulation, or accountability. In reality, this would entrench control while continuing to exclude over a million licensees who either can’t afford dues or choose not to join NAR. And with straight faces, these same voices claim that not using their system is malpractice.

The Department of Justice saw the problem. As part of its settlement talks, the DOJ pushed to open MLS access to all licensed agents, not just those paying Realtor dues. NAR refused. That disagreement helped derail the deal. If MLS access were truly public and affordable, participation would likely double, increasing competition and driving down costs for consumers. But that would mean letting go of the velvet ropes.

Which brings us to another form of selective framing: the way sale prices are measured and promoted.

Industry studies frequently claim that FSBO and off-MLS homes sell for less than those listed on the MLS. But these analyses nearly always focus on gross sale price, ignoring what actually matters to consumers: net proceeds. A FSBO seller might accept a lower price, but if they save 5–6% in commissions, they may come out ahead, or at least even. Net proceeds, not just top-line price, should be the benchmark for consumer outcomes.

Zillow’s own recent study, for example, found that off-MLS listings sold for 1.5% less on average. What it didn’t mention is whether those sellers paid a fraction of the commission, or any commission at all. By omitting that context, the message becomes misleading: as if any seller who tries something different is simply losing money.

If the industry truly believes consumers can’t grasp these trade-offs, then presenting top-line numbers without mentioning commission costs isn’t just incomplete, it’s disingenuous. At best, it’s selective framing. At worst, it’s a polished form of gaslighting dressed up as consumer protection.

If we truly care about consumers, let’s prove it:

• Require clear disclosures, not mandates.
• Prohibit double-ending a transaction by the same agent to remove the most egregious conflicts of interest, while preserving intra-office designated agency where each party has separate representation.
• Outlaw or at least bring transparency to hidden referral fees that quietly extract up to 40% of every commission.
• Let sellers decide how to sell, with plain-English disclosures, not gatekeeping.

Transparency isn’t the problem. It’s the pretense that consumers need to be saved from choices that are easy to understand. If a seller wants broad exposure, they’ll choose it. If they want privacy, speed, or discount commissions, let them have it, with eyes wide open.

Don’t weaponize transparency. Honor it.

Dean DiCarlo is the CEO of Homing.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.To contact the editor responsible for this piece: [email protected].