Glenn Sanford, CEO of eXp World Holdings, uses the ongoing Compass-Zillow lawsuit to frame a broader conversation about the future of real estate competition. Sanford emphasizes that eXp’s rise—from a small startup to a brokerage with over 84,000 agents—was only possible because of open access to listings through MLS systems. Unlike today’s mega-brokerages built on billion-dollar capital and acquisitions, eXp relied on a level playing field that allowed even small firms to offer the same property inventory as major competitors.
Sanford argues that if private, controlled listing networks had been the industry standard back in 2009, eXp’s model would have been dead on arrival. Without open access to listing inventory, small brokerages would be excluded from premium properties, making it impossible to recruit top agents or grow organically. In such an environment, success would hinge on capital consolidation, forcing small firms to merge or disappear, and rewarding financial muscle over service innovation.
At the heart of Sanford’s concern is market structure. He warns that real estate risks becoming dominated by a handful of capital-heavy players who control access to listings. The MLS system, while imperfect, has long served as an equalizer, enabling rural brokerages to compete with urban giants. Without this shared database, the market fractures, competition shrinks, and consumer choice suffers.
Interestingly, Sanford acknowledges that eXp has now grown large enough to create its own private listing marketplace—but they refuse to do so. Instead, eXp supports Zillow’s position on listing transparency, not to undermine competition, but to defend the very open-access principles that allowed their success. For Sanford, maintaining listing transparency is about preserving opportunity for future innovators, not entrenching advantage for today’s market leaders.
Sanford also highlights the real-world consumer impact when listings go private. Sellers face reduced competition, often losing thousands per transaction, with communities of color disproportionately affected. Buyers see their choices restricted, sometimes forced to align with specific brokerages just to view properties. In these scenarios, brokerages profit from artificial scarcity rather than delivering superior service or real value.
Looking ahead, Sanford urges the industry to resist consolidation-driven models that favor capital control over consumer benefit. The future of real estate, he argues, should reward companies that innovate and serve both agents and consumers—not those who acquire market share only to restrict access. At stake is nothing less than the foundational question: will success in real estate be earned through excellence, or bought through market control?