Zillow’s latest policy demands that agents post homes to the MLS within one business day of any public marketing. If they don’t, Zillow will remove the listing from its platform — a move the company says protects consumers by ensuring homes receive “maximum exposure.”
But here’s the problem: Zillow built an entire line of business explicitly designed to avoid that kind of exposure. For example – they do not have a requirement for FSBO to list with an MLS to appear on their site – nor do they require new home builders to list their home in the MLS to appear on their site. If the MLS is so important – why are they carving out exclusions for consumers or builders?
From 2018 through 2022, Zillow Offers — the company’s failed iBuying arm — bought more than 20,000 homes directly from sellers without putting those homes in the MLS. These were off-market deals, advertised as convenient and fast, often framed as “no showings, no staging, no open houses.” Sellers were encouraged to avoid the hassle of listing — and avoid the MLS.
Now, the same company claims that not listing a home in the MLS is a disservice to the homeowner.
“By ensuring listings are widely marketed, sellers benefit from maximum exposure, which research shows typically leads to higher sale prices and a quicker sale.” – Zillow, 2024
It begs the question: Was Zillow wrong then — or are they wrong now?
Because it can’t be both. Either:
- Zillow Offers spent 3.5 years quietly convincing homeowners to take less for their properties than they might have received with full market exposure, or
- Zillow’s current research promoting MLS transparency is deeply flawed.
Either Zillow intentionally underpaid sellers during the iBuyer craze, and continue to encourage non-mls listings for FSBO and Builders – or their newfound commitment to MLS-first transparency is theater.
A double standard dressed up as consumer advocacy
Zillow’s policy doesn’t just apply to agents — it applies only to agents (again – not FSBO or Builders).
If a broker posts a photo of a listing on Instagram before putting it in the MLS, Zillow removes the listing. But if a homeowner wants to sell their property FSBO, Zillow publishes it — no MLS required. If a homebuilder wants to bypass the MLS and syndicate listings directly, Zillow accommodates.
Even Zillow’s own brokerage division, which operates lead-gen services and has direct control over consumer pathways, is exempt from these standards when it suits their business model.
This is a selective enforcement strategy. Not a universal consumer protection policy.
Power, not policy
Zillow is no longer just a portal. It’s a brokerage, a media platform, a lead arbitrator, and a self-appointed compliance officer for the industry.
What’s being enforced here isn’t ethics. It’s control.
By forcing brokers to play by rules that Zillow itself doesn’t follow — and didn’t follow when it was in the homebuying business — the company is setting up a hierarchy where compliance is only required of its competitors.
That’s not just hypocritical. It’s structural leverage disguised as policy.
What brokers should do next
The MLS community and the brokerage community have a right — and a responsibility — to question the legitimacy of this policy. If Zillow wants to be a compliance gatekeeper, it must hold all sellers to the same standard. Not just the brokers they compete with.
WAV Group encourages MLSs and brokerage leaders to ask hard questions:
- Why is MLS compliance being enforced selectively?
- Why were 20,000+ off-MLS Zillow transactions acceptable, but a coming-soon post from an agent is not?
- And who benefits when Zillow controls not just the consumer audience, but also the rules for how listings are allowed to appear?
Zillow’s policy isn’t about consumer protection. It’s about consolidating power — and rewriting the rules of competition, one exemption at a time.
P.S. Another thing that I have been thinking about that I could not really fit into this article is an observation about the conflict of unfairness in IDX policy interpretation.
In the way back machine of our IDX policy was a time when companies did not want to share IDX listings with discount brokers. The DoJ got fired up and shut that practice down. Effectively, a broker does not really have the option of withholding listings from a competitor. What the policy does not state is that a broker must display the listings of another brokerage. This is the case with Zillow saying that they will not display a competitor’s listing. Not displaying listings because of a broker’s business practice seems just as bad as withholding listings because of a broker’s business practice. Am I right?
