Real estate agents are losing control over their listing data as technology platforms and brokerages negotiate direct partnerships, according to Courtney Poulos, founder and CEO of ACME Real Estate in Los Angeles. With 20 years of experience building a boutique brokerage, Poulos argues that agents bear the costs of creating listing content but have the least say in how it is distributed and monetized, creating a fundamental imbalance that threatens the industry's structure.
The core problem, as Poulos identifies it, involves multiple stakeholders in the listing data chain. Agents fund professional photography, staging, videos, and marketing materials while sellers authorize property information use. Brokerages facilitate transactions, Multiple Listing Services aggregate the data, and platforms then distribute it. "Everyone has a claim to the data, but the people who create it and own the properties have the least say in how it's used," Poulos says. This fragmentation is exacerbated by the existence of more than 1,100 separate MLS systems nationwide, each operating under different rules and standards, preventing agents from having a unified voice when negotiating with national platforms.
Financial arrangements highlight the imbalance. MLSs collect fees from platforms like Zillow in exchange for access to listing data, while agents absorb all upfront content creation costs. When a listing fails to sell, the agent takes a total loss on photography, video, and marketing spend, while the MLS has already been paid. "MLSs are being paid by platforms for our listing data," Poulos explains. "We're funding the photos, videos, and marketing materials. When a listing doesn't sell, that's pure loss for the agent, but the MLS has already profited from syndicating that content." For boutique brokerages like ACME Real Estate, which closed $155 million in sales in 2024 across 35 agents, this imbalance is particularly acute.
Recent direct partnership agreements between major brokerages and listing platforms are setting precedents that will shape listing distribution for years. Poulos questions whether these deals give brokerages genuine control over their data or simply formalize existing arrangements where platforms retain distribution authority. "The real test is whether these deals result in agents having more say in how their listings are marketed, or whether they're just new arrangements that maintain platform control," she says. For independent brokerages, the stakes are concrete: if major national firms lock in exclusive platform relationships, smaller brokerages will compete at a structural disadvantage.
Poulos advocates for consolidating the nation's MLS systems into a single nationwide platform accessible to all licensed agents regardless of location. A unified system would standardize data across markets and give agents collective bargaining power they currently lack. Agents working across state lines currently navigate multiple memberships, inconsistent fee structures, and incompatible data standards, while sellers relocating see their properties marketed through entirely different systems. "It doesn't serve anyone well," Poulos observes.
The path forward faces significant obstacles, as existing MLS organizations, state associations, and large brokerages have financial and institutional reasons to resist change. However, Poulos argues the cost of inaction is higher, warning that without structural shifts, agents will continue absorbing content creation costs while platforms consolidate distribution control. "We're at a decision point," she says. "The industry can build systems that restore agent control over listing data, or we can watch that control become permanently consolidated with technology platforms." Poulos expects the next 12 to 18 months to be decisive, with current negotiations setting precedents that will shape real estate for the next decade.
