The inefficiency doesn’t stop there. The U.S. has over 500 separate MLSs — each with internal tech stacks and management teams. These domains arrived long before modern technology enabled efficiencies of scale. Today, they persist by protecting entrenched interests instead offering the best solution. If we were to start fresh, no competent businessperson would design an MLS system like this. Technology still isn’t the NAR’s strong suit. This fact underscored by their costly decision to sell Realtor.com for a fraction of its value at the expense of many fee-paying agents and consumers.
While CCP rules permeate this flawed system, there’s a bigger issue that’s been conveniently ignored: dual agency.
Dual agency: the real issue at hand
Dual agency — where one agent or brokerage represents both parties in a transaction — creates conflicts of interest that directly harm consumers. While CCP rules attempt to address transparency in the MLS, they don’t address dual agency-induced damage. In fact, dual agency incentivizes the very practices that the CCP supposedly combats.
Here’s the dark side of dual agency
- Steering to double-end deals: Dual agency creates a massive financial incentive for agents to “double-end” deals, leading to unethical practices like steering. For example, agents may prioritize offers that allow them to double-end the transaction, even if those offers are less favorable to the seller. Unlike issues like cooperating compensation, steering in dual agency is far more difficult to track.
- Breach of fiduciary duty: How can one agent uphold his or her fiduciary duty to two parties with opposing interests? A buyer wants to pay the least, while a seller wants to maximize their price. Dual agency compromises this duty, leading to outcomes where neither party’s interests are fully protected. Imagine a $1 million business dispute where both parties hire attorneys from the same firm. It would never happen. Yet, in real estate transactions of similar value, dual agency is considered acceptable.
- Erosion of negotiating power: Dual agency often leads to “meet in the middle” negotiations. While this may seem fair, it’s often a path of least resistance that leaves money on the table. Skilled agents can navigate dual agency effectively, but most will compromise and prioritize closing the deal over achieving the best outcome for their clients.
Why does dual agency still exist?
The allure of double commissions keeps dual agency firmly entrenched in the industry. Homes.com’s “my listing, my lead” strategy explicitly promises agents opportunities to double-end deals — and agents are responding enthusiastically. But do sellers truly understand what they’re giving up when they agree to dual agency? No, the lack of transparency around these transactions suggests they don’t.
How eliminating dual agency solves bigger problems
Banning dual agency would address many of the issues that CCP rules attempt — and fail —to solve. Here’s how:
- Eliminates steering Incentives: Without the financial windfall of double commissions, agents and brokerages would have no incentive to prioritize in-house transactions. This would naturally lead to greater transparency and ensure that sellers receive offers from the widest possible pool of buyers.
- Increases MLS utilization: Without the ability to double-end transactions, there would be no financial reason for brokerages like Compass to restrict listings from the MLS. Sellers would benefit from the increased visibility and competition that the MLS provides.
- Restores fiduciary integrity: Every party in a transaction would have a dedicated representative whose sole responsibility is to advocate for their best interests. This would restore trust in the agent-client relationship and align the industry with practices common in other high-stakes negotiations.
The industry’s missed opportunity
The fervor around CCP has created a smokescreen that distracts from the real issue. While the industry debates whether CCP protects or stifles competition, dual agency continues to harm consumers in obscure, highly-damaging ways.
The silence from industry leaders on this issue is deafening. Where are the “white knights” who are so vocal in positioning themselves as champions for consumer interests? If the industry truly cared about protecting buyers and sellers, it would take a stand against dual agency. Instead, the focus remains on defending a flawed MLS system that benefits the status quo.
Conclusion
The debate over Clear Cooperation may dominate headlines, but it’s a distraction from the more pressing issue of dual agency. Eliminating dual agency would remove the incentive for brokerages to hoard listings, increase transparency, and ensure that every consumer has a dedicated advocate in their corner. It’s time for the industry to stop defending outdated practices and start putting consumers first.
To those championing CCP as the ultimate solution: let’s aim higher. Support an industry-wide ban on dual agency. Only then can we create a real estate market that truly serves the best interests of buyers and sellers alike.
Dean DiCarlo is the CEO at Homing.
