Nearly two years after real estate compensation rules underwent their biggest overhaul in decades, we finally have enough distance to see what was hard to spot in August 2024: the rules changed, but the basic structure of the transaction remained virtually untouched.
When the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld final approval of NAR’s nationwide commission settlement on August 19, it affirmed the removal of buyer broker compensation offers from participating MLSs and required written agreements before property tours. Yet, the dramatic compression in commission rates that many industry observers predicted simply has not materialized.
In fact, an analysis published by Alloy Advisors noted that national average commissions actually edged up to 5.44% in mid-2025 from 5.32% the year before. The same study estimated that a standard $400,000 home resale still carries roughly $39,660 in total transaction costs, with agent commissions accounting for $23,000 of that total.
That does not mean the settlement failed; it just proves that regulatory transparency and true structural change are two entirely different things. The settlement made fees explicit and negotiable, but it did not give buyers and sellers a fundamentally different framework for completing a deal. That deeper, structural shift is what still lies ahead.
A public trust problem meets tech limitations
To understand why the transaction itself is overdue for evolution, you have to look at how consumers actually feel about the process right now. Public trust in real estate agents remains historically low, with Gallup’s Honesty and Ethics surveys consistently ranking real estate agents alongside car salespeople and stockbrokers. Buyers and sellers are not just skeptical of what agents charge; they are increasingly frustrated by how opaque, fragmented and unnecessarily high-friction the entire deal feels.
At the same time, technology is shifting consumer expectations faster than traditional brokerages can adapt. We have all seen viral stories of tech-savvy homeowners using AI chatbots to draft listing descriptions, analyze comps or parse complex seller disclosures.
Yet an open-ended chatbot is not a real estate transaction engine. When consumers realize a general-purpose AI cannot securely coordinate showings, manage earnest money, access lockboxes or guarantee legal compliance, they run directly into the limits of DIY technology.
Lacking a dedicated, tech-enabled platform to bridge that gap, most consumers default right back to the traditional model out of necessity. NAR’s 2025Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers showed that 88% of buyers and 91% of sellers still used a broker, while For-Sale-By-Owner transactions dropped to just 5%, which is the lowest share on record.
Traditional brokerages love to cite those numbers as proof that consumers prefer the traditional model, but that misreads the market. Consumers are not choosing full-service agent bundles because the traditional model is perfect; they choose them because stepping into a $500,000 transaction with zero safety net is terrifying. For most people, the choice is not between full service and a better tech-enabled alternative; it is between paying a $25,000 commission or walking a legal high wire completely alone.
The platforms unbundling the bundle
That false binary is finally starting to crack. A new wave of tech platforms is proving that you can decouple transaction infrastructure from high percentage-based commissions.
Companies like Ridley are challenging the idea that a million-dollar home requires three times as much administrative work as a $350,000 home by offering tiered flat-fee structures. Platforms like Ownli are replacing percentage commissions with AI-assisted contract execution and dynamic pricing tools. Meanwhile, models like TurboHome are tackling buyer representation by combining automated property discovery with flat fees, removing the inherent conflict of interest built into traditional commission shares.
These platforms are not just discount brokerages; they are proofs-of-concept for a fundamental truth. Property research, document drafting, scheduling and transaction tracking are software problems, while strategic negotiation and high-stakes risk management are human expertise problems.
A traditional brokerage relationship generally bundles those two things into a single, indivisible price tag. Human judgment (such as navigating a messy home inspection or managing an emotional negotiation) is undeniably valuable, but operational mechanics are increasingly automated. The obvious question the industry keeps avoiding is simple: why should consumers be obliged to buy them as a package deal?
Historically, the bundle was necessary because the agent was both an expert adviser and the sole gateway to the machinery that made the transaction legal and binding. Technology is now separating those roles.
Regulatory pressure is not done yet
If anyone in the industry thinks we are safely “post-settlement,” the legal landscape says otherwise. Federal courts recently granted final approval to $28.5 million in settlements involving Keller Williams and REMAX in theBattonhomebuyer litigation, while a fairness hearing is set for November 2 onTuccorisettlements exceeding $120 million, including a proposed $52.25 million payout from NAR.
More importantly, the Department of Justice has made it clear that its interest in real estate competition did not end with the NAR agreement. In a December 2025 statement of interest inDavis v. Hanna Holdings, the DOJ argued that challenged broker compensation practices warrant strict antitrust scrutiny. Citing Federal Reserve research, the DOJ pointed out that broker commissions and related costs totaled roughly $170 billion in 2024 alone, amounting to roughly 0.6% of entire U.S. GDP.
An economic engine of that scale cannot remain insulated from structural change forever, especially as the software tools inside it rapidly evolve.
From fee transparency to modular choice
The 2024 reforms focused almost entirely on making agent compensation transparent to the consumer, which was a necessary first step. But clarity without real choices does not change much.
HousingWire recently reported that buyer representation agreements have become some of the most frequently decoded documents on LernMore, an AI contract platform consumers use to parse legalese. Buyers can now understandwhatthey are signing, but understanding a contract does not mean you have a viable alternative to signing it.
The defining question for the next decade is not whether consumers will keep using agents. Many will, and for good reason. The real question is whether consumers will continue buying an entire, monolithic service package just to access the two or three specific functions they actually need.
The future of real estate is not about replacing agents or racing to the bottom on fees; it is about building an unbundled, modular transaction framework. When consumers finally have access to independent, end-to-end digital infrastructure, they can hire agents, attorneys, inspectors, and transaction coordinators for their specific expertise, rather than because a bundled agent relationship was the only way presented to navigate the maze.
For years, real estate disruption has focused on changing what an agent costs. The far bigger opportunity lies in changing what the consumer is actually buying in the first place.
Sadie Tayloris a licensed real estate broker and the co-founder and CEO of Qilo, an upcoming flat-fee transaction platform. She writes about proptech innovation, unbundled real estate models and the post-settlement housing economy.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.
To contact the editor responsible for this piece:[emailprotected]