Bigger. Better. Bolder. Inman Connect is heading to San Diego. Join thousands of real estate pros, connect with the Inman Community and gain insights from hundreds of leading minds shaping the industry. If you’re ready to grow your business and invest in yourself, this is where you need to be. Go BIG in San Diego!

A flare up in the conflict over private listings between Compass and Northwest MLS ended Thursday, but in its wake the two parties presented differing versions of what happened.

The issue began Tuesday when Northwest MLS (NWMLS) suspended Compass’ IDX feed, which is what distributes MLS data to MLS users. The move escalated what had previously been a war of words, but the feed was restored Thursday.

TAKE THE INMAN INTEL SURVEY FOR APRIL

In a statement to Inman Thursday, NWMLS indicated that the suspension was intentional and a response to Compass’ use of privately marketed listings — which NWMLS disallows but which are a core part of Compass’ current strategy.

“The suspension was the result of Compass’ failure to input numerous of its own listings and share those listings with other member real estate firms and their clients in accordance with Northwest MLS’s rules,” the statement indicated. “Northwest MLS offered Compass a data license for its own listings, but Compass did not respond to that offer. Compass’ brokers access to all other Northwest MLS systems remained uninterrupted.”

The statement also indicated that the conflict, at least as it pertained to the IDX feed, had been resolved.

“Northwest MLS worked with Compass on April 15th and 16th to facilitate Compass’ compliance with Northwest MLS’s rules,” the statement continued. “With Compass’ commitment that it would comply with Northwest MLS’s rules going forward, Northwest MLS reinstated the data license to Compass on April 17th.”

However, when Inman asked Compass about the resolution, the company responded by saying it had already been following the rules.

“Compass has always held itself to the highest standards and has always followed NWMLS rules,” the company said in an email to Inman Thursday evening. “When Compass listed Private Exclusives, we followed the NWMLS ruleset. The NWMLS changed its rules to block Compass clients from using Private Exclusives. Compass remains committed to giving homeowners the choices they deserve and enjoy in every other state.”

“Private Exclusives” is the term Compass uses to refer to privately marketed homes, which is the initial status given to properties moving through the brokerage’s “three-phase marketing strategy.” After going on sale as a private exclusive, homes then move on to “coming soon” status, but it is only after that in the third phase of the strategy that they go to the MLS.

The conflicting statements get at a core question in the NWMLS-Compass conflict: How is Compass doing private listings in Washington state? Inman had asked individuals on both sides of the conflict this question in a number of recent off-the-record calls. But the response was generally that supporters of Compass believed the company was in compliance with the rules while supporters of NWMLS believed the company was not.

Compass’ statement offers the brokerage’s answer to that question: The rules changed, to Compass’ disadvantage.

The company also provided Inman with PDFs showing NWMLS rules. The PDFs indicate that on March 28 — days after Reffkin first criticized NWMLS on Instagram — multiple rules having to do with non-exclusive listing agreements were changed.

The PDFs also show a number of other changes that took place on other dates, but there is no information in the document about what prompted any of the modifications. Inman has reached out to NWMLS for more information.

Whether the two versions of this saga can be reconciled remains to be seen.

But either way, the conflict has taken place against the backdrop of intense wrestling within the real estate industry over private listings. That conflict began with pressure on the National Association of Realtors over Clear Cooperation Policy — which was recently modified — and has continued in recent days with bans on private listings from Zillow and Redfin. And for the time being, the issue remains hotly contested.

Email Jim Dalrymple II

Bigger. Better. Bolder. Inman Connect is heading to San Diego. Join thousands of real estate pros, connect with the power of the Inman Community, and gain insights from hundreds of leading minds shaping the industry. If you’re ready to grow your business and invest in yourself, this is where you need to be. Go BIG in San Diego!

The amount of time, energy and resources this industry is spending debating how to limit listing visibility — often under the guise of academic, moral or legal nuance — is staggering. To those outside our bubble, it must look like a turf war on a middle-school playground.

The difference? What’s at stake here is whether American homebuyers and sellers are being deliberately kept in the dark. 

For decades, we’ve seen a carousel of new business models come and go — each claiming it would “change the game.” They didn’t. Then came the listing portals, and like it or not, they did change the game. For consumers, it was for the better. Visibility improved, the tools became more sophisticated, and agents eventually adapted.

Yet here we go again: The industry has not structurally changed since at least 2009, and the latest wave of disruption isn’t really delivering anything new; it’s just shifting power around. And that power can also mean informational asymmetry for homesellers and buyers. 

Certain consumers (not all consumers, just some) are being steered into off-market transactions, disguised as exclusivity and efficiency. But let’s be clear: The data shows time and again that when properties aren’t marketed openly, sellers typically leave money on the table, buyers lose access, and the market as a whole becomes less transparent.

Hiding listings isn’t innovation. It’s a step backward.

So, who is this really benefiting? 

Keeping listings hidden isn’t solving a consumer problem. It’s designed for competitive positioning, not better outcomes. Without intervention, this will persist. No clear lines are drawn. No consistent consumer-first standard is enforced.

And in many ways, MLSs can be left being the first line of defense, forced to implement and police rules that often contradict the spirit of an open marketplace. In practice, that means everyone is unhappy.

At Bright MLS, we support all business models. We believe in flexibility that goes beyond NAR’s recommendations. There are certainly use cases for office exclusives for homeowners whose privacy and security are of top concern. We recognize and support that ability for brokers to serve those homesellers. 

But we also believe in facts. And the facts are that homes marketed “exclusively,” and outside of the open system, sell for less and take longer to sell. That’s not speculation, and we’re not guessing. We have the hard data.

We studied over 100,000 property sales across the Mid-Atlantic over the past six months. The results are conclusive: Properties marketed “privately” by licensed brokers and agents but off the MLS are not delivering better outcomes that are backed by data for buyers or sellers.  

So, let’s ask ourselves: Who is truly advocating for the consumer? Who’s willing to say out loud that open access is better than curated exclusivity? Who’s willing to acknowledge that ethics aren’t just a side conversation, they’re the backbone of real estate? 

At Bright, we are unapologetically pro-transparency. We decided when we started studying off-MLS transactions nearly five years ago that we would share what the data said. We will continue to be transparent and report on future trends. We will shine a light on what the data says. And the data shows that consumers benefit from homes being marketed transparently to everyone. 

And we invite everyone — even our fiercest critics — to engage in this conversation openly, with the facts in hand. Because if you’re arguing for secrecy in a marketplace that is built on trust and efficiency, then maybe it’s not the model that’s outdated — maybe it’s the mindset. 

So, what’s next? We have always had those who push the boundaries under the guise of innovation or a new business model, but we now have the data to evaluate those impacts. We believe most professionals in the industry understand a transparent marketplace is best for the consumer.

On the other hand, consumers only buy and sell a house every 10 years. The question is — who is ensuring the consumer has all the facts?