Canopy MLS CEO Anne Marie DeCatsye does not see her organization’s latest expansion as an effort to create a national MLS — but she does see it as a sign that the traditional geography of the MLS business is under pressure.
In a conversation with Inman, DeCatsye said brokerages have become national and mega-regional businesses, while many MLSs remain tied to geographic boundaries that consumers and brokers increasingly do not recognize.
“Consumers don’t see borders with respect to data, so it’s sort of outdated for MLSs to box themselves into a territory,” DeCatsye said.
Her comments came after the Charlotte-based Canopy MLS announced this week that licensed real estate professionals and brokerages from across the country would be able to join its platform. The MLS also said brokerages would be allowed to submit listings through approved third-party or proprietary systems, a move Canopy said would allow firms to better leverage their existing technology investments while maintaining standards for accuracy, compliance and data integrity.
In its announcement, Canopy stressed that the moves were “not intended to create a national MLS or favor any particular brokerage, technology provider, or business model.” Rather, the MLS framed the changes as part of a broader effort to give brokers more flexibility while preserving the MLS as a cooperative marketplace.
For DeCatsye, the larger issue is not whether Canopy or other MLSs are “going national,” but whether MLSs can remain useful to brokers whose businesses no longer fit neatly inside local MLS boundaries.
“Brokers have gone national or mega-regional,” DeCatsye said. “The brokerage industry has completely changed and MLSs are just now realizing, well, we probably need to accommodate that in a way we haven’t been.”
‘The brokers are fed up’
Canopy’s announcement comes amid a flurry of MLS activity and industry debate over private listings, delayed marketing, broker technology and MLS consolidation.
In recent weeks, MRED, Realtracs and Bright MLS have all announced moves that expand access, listing networks or broker-facing services beyond traditional market boundaries. Those moves have drawn attention in part because they involve Compass, which has spent much of the past year pushing MLSs to give sellers and brokers more control over how listings are marketed before reaching the broader public marketplace.
Canopy’s announcement did not specifically mention Compass, but it used familiar framing — broker choice, seller choice, flexibility and proprietary systems — that overlaps with the industry’s broader fight over private listings and MLS rules. DeCatsye said Canopy’s move should be understood less as a reaction to Compass and more as a response to long-running broker frustrations with MLS fragmentation.
Large brokerages increasingly operate across markets, while even regional firms may need to belong to multiple MLSs with different listing-input systems, data feeds, contracts and rules. Canopy, DeCatsye noted, is an owner of MLS Grid, which was created in part to address broker pain points around fragmented data feeds and inconsistent contracts.
But she said those efforts have not solved every problem.
“I’ve got to believe the brokers are frustrated, because it didn’t solve all their pain points,” DeCatsye said.
She added that she has a difficult time understanding why some MLSs would resist responding to broker needs.
“I really have a hard time getting my head around MLSs bucking the brokers on what they need, and I’m getting the sense that they are, and the brokers are fed up,” DeCatsye said.
That frustration, she added, is partly why Canopy decided to make clear that brokers outside its traditional service area could join the platform if they find value in doing so.
Canopy MLS serves more than 22,000 subscribers across parts of North Carolina and South Carolina, but DeCatsye said broker and consumer behavior no longer stops neatly at MLS borders. She pointed to North Carolina’s mountain markets, where she said five MLSs serve a region where consumers are unlikely to understand or care about the boundaries between different territories.
“I don’t think consumers really see borders in the North Carolina mountains,” DeCatsye said. “I don’t think we’re doing the brokers any justice, even local brokers, who aren’t national, by having to have them be part of that many MLSs.”
A narrower view of seller choice
Still, DeCatsye pushed back on the idea that Canopy is embracing a broad shift away from public listing exposure.
Canopy’s announcement included support for “meaningful seller choice” and recognized that some sellers may have valid reasons to limit the marketing of their homes, including privacy, security or unique personal circumstances. But the MLS also said sellers should understand that broad marketplace exposure “typically provides the greatest opportunity” to attract qualified buyers, maximize competition and achieve the best possible outcome.
That is a meaningful distinction at a moment when Compass and other private-listing advocates have framed seller choice as a challenge to traditional MLS distribution rules. DeCatsye said the industry debate has placed too much attention on office exclusives, pocket listings and limited-exposure options.
“I agree that the emphasis is in the wrong place,” DeCatsye said, adding that the focus on limited and office-exclusive listings has been “blown out of proportion” by the trade media. Canopy, she said, believes some sellers may have valid reasons to limit exposure. But she said those cases should not become the norm.
“There’s going to be sellers with valid reasons to have limited exposure of their listings,” DeCatsye said. “But we strongly believe that the broader marketplace exposure is going to be the best opportunity to get qualified buyers and sell at the highest price and get the most eyeballs on it.”
The risk, she said, is that consumers become confused about whether limited exposure is actually in their best interest.
“It would be valid for some sellers,” DeCatsye said. “It shouldn’t be a reason for all sellers.”
‘Tweaking it,’ not changing the architecture
Canopy’s latest announcement builds on listing-option changes the MLS began rolling out last year.
The MLS previously declined to adopt the National Association of Realtors’ delayed marketing exempt listings category and instead moved forward with its own listing options, including Limited Exposure and Firm Exclusive listing categories. Those options allow some listings to be withheld from public feeds or limited to agents within the same firm.
Canopy has also modified its Coming Soon-No Show status to suppress price history in certain circumstances. The changes place Canopy inside a broader industry debate over whether limited-exposure listings, suppressed price history and paused days-on-market calculations give sellers valuable flexibility or impact market transparency and advantage firms with larger internal networks.
DeCatsye rejected the idea that Canopy — and others instituting similar measures — are changing the entire architecture of the MLS system around a relatively small share of sellers who may prioritize privacy or want limited exposure. Instead, she said, Canopy is making narrower adjustments for specific situations while preserving broad exposure as the norm.
“I would call it tweaking it,” DeCatsye said. “Slightly modifying it.”
Office exclusives and pocket listings, she noted, have existed for years and Canopy’s approach, she argued, is to create controlled options inside the MLS rather than ignore those practices or push them outside the system entirely.
“We’re just trying to not necessarily preserve the status quo, but make some accommodations where some business models have changed,” DeCatsye said.
Canopy’s goal, she added, is to give sellers options while balancing the needs of buyer agents and preserving access to listing information “to the greatest extent possible.”
Compass did not direct the move, CEO says
Canopy’s announcement came after MRED, Realtracs and Bright MLS each announced new initiatives involving Compass, raising the question of whether Canopy’s move was also shaped by the brokerage giant’s push for more flexibility around listings and MLS participation.
DeCatsye said Compass’ recent moves with other MLSs were part of the broader industry conversation Canopy was watching. But she said Compass did not direct Canopy’s decision.
She acknowledged receiving outreach from Compass CEO Robert Reffkin last year, as many other MLS leaders did, and said she regularly speaks with large broker-owners, including Compass. But she said Canopy had already been examining its own listing policies and would make decisions based on its own market and subscribers.
“I can tell you, last summer I got the same email everybody else got from Robert Reffkin, and my response was, we’re already looking into this, and we’ll do what’s best for Canopy,” DeCatsye said. “I’m not going to be directed by one firm. And Canopy’s not going to be directed by one firm.”
That distinction was important to Canopy’s board, she said, because the board includes representatives from large firms, small firms, outlying counties, franchises and national firms.
“It was very important to our board of directors that we make the statement that we’re not aligning with one broker,” DeCatsye said.
Consolidation pressure will remain
The same forces pushing Canopy to open itself beyond its traditional borders could also accelerate consolidation among MLSs, DeCatsye said.
She stopped short of calling for one national MLS and said Canopy is not trying to become one. But she said the current map of hundreds of MLSs does not always match how brokers, brokerages or consumers experience the market.
“A natural progression in the consolidation moment we’re seeing with the brokerages should be a natural progression of consolidation of the MLSs,” DeCatsye said.
DeCatsye has previously said the industry should not have one national MLS. She reiterated that view, but said there should be fewer MLSs than exist today. Still, she said MLS consolidation is not happening quickly enough.
The future she described is not necessarily one national MLS, but a more competitive MLS landscape.
“I’m hopeful that this sends a signal that MLSs need to be, in a sense, competing on at least mega-regional, if not on a national level, with each other,” DeCatsye said.
Defending the MLS
But DeCatsye’s call for MLSs to adapt was also a defense of the MLS itself. Her concern is not that MLSs should become less central to the industry, but that they need to become more responsive to brokers before brokers look for other ways to solve their own problems.
That means giving brokers more flexibility around technology, listing input and seller options, she said, while still preserving the cooperative marketplace that gives buyers and sellers access to reliable listing information.
At times, DeCatsye said, agents do not fully understand that role.
“There’s a certain responsibility they have to step back and understand the bigger picture of why the MLS was created, why it exists, who it protects from a consumer protection standpoint,” DeCatsye said.
The challenge now, DeCatsye suggested, is figuring out how that cooperative model should evolve at a time when brokerages, technology platforms and consumer behavior have all moved beyond traditional local boundaries.
She also said the industry is at a “crossroads” over who should lead MLS policy — NAR or the Council of MLSs — and said policy should not be driven primarily by fear of litigation.
“NAR is walking a tightrope too,” DeCatsye said, adding that she has some sympathy for the organization’s position because it is risk-averse in a litigious environment. “My standpoint is that policy should not be made out of fear of being sued or not sued.”
Canopy, she said, is willing to make policy decisions it believes are right for brokers and consumers, even if that means accepting legal risk.
“If we are doing the right thing and we can justify what we’re doing, it’s best for all of our firms,” DeCatsye said. “If we get sued, we deal with it then.”
