Courtney Poulos, founder and CEO of ACME Real Estate in Los Angeles, argues that recent direct partnerships between major brokerages and listing platforms are accelerating a power shift that moves control of listing data away from agents and toward technology companies. With 20 years of experience building a boutique brokerage, Poulos has watched agents steadily lose ground in their ability to control how their listings are distributed and monetized.
The core issue, according to Poulos, is that agents bear the costs of creating listing content but have the least say in how it is used. Agents fund professional photography, staging, videos, and marketing materials, while MLSs collect fees from platforms in exchange for access to that listing data. When a listing fails to sell, the agent takes a total loss on photography, video, and marketing spend, while the MLS has already profited from syndicating that content.
The fragmentation of the MLS landscape exacerbates the problem. With more than 1,100 separate MLS systems nationwide operating under different rules and standards, agents have no unified voice when negotiating with national platforms. "When you have about 600 different systems with different standards, agents can't collectively negotiate favorable terms," Poulos says. This fragmentation prevents agents from having meaningful influence over how their data is distributed and monetized.
For boutique brokerages without the transaction volume to offset marketing costs, the imbalance is particularly acute. ACME Real Estate closed $155 million in sales in 2024 across 35 agents, a scale where every marketing dollar is consequential. Poulos argues that if platforms are paying MLSs for access to agent-created data, agents should be part of the conversation about how that revenue is distributed.
The direct partnership agreements now being announced 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 and boutique brokerages, the stakes are concrete. If major national firms lock in exclusive or preferential platform relationships, smaller brokerages will compete at a structural disadvantage with no equivalent leverage to offset it. "Unless there's collective action through restructured systems, independent brokerages will continue to have limited leverage," Poulos warns.
Poulos supports 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 the collective bargaining power they currently lack. Agents who work across state lines currently navigate multiple memberships, inconsistent fee structures, and incompatible data standards, creating inefficiencies that don't serve agents or sellers well.
The path forward requires cooperation from organizations that benefit from the current structure, including existing MLS organizations, state associations, and large brokerages. Poulos argues the cost of inaction is higher, as agents will continue absorbing content creation costs while platforms consolidate control over distribution. "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 deals being negotiated now setting precedents that will shape real estate for the next decade. Her advice to individual agents is to pay attention to where leverage is concentrating, as agents and small brokerages operating in isolation have little ability to influence these outcomes. Collective action through a restructured national system represents the most viable mechanism for change.
