“So, Summer, were you shocked to learn that female brokerage leaders are more concerned about AI compliance than their male counterparts?”
Actually, no. I was utterly — not — shocked.
Several years ago, I stood on a beach in Kauai and watched my son learn to surf. My husband and I were watching the same child in the same ocean, but I am certain we were not seeing the same thing.
My husband saw adventure. With every approaching wave and every attempt to ride it, he smiled. He saw our son’s courage and excitement.
Pan over to my face, and you would have seen something entirely different. I observed the force of the ocean and the distance between my son and the shore. As each wave approached, I calculated what needed to happen next — and feared what might happen if it didn’t.
Was that a difference in personality? Or do women and men sometimes look at the same opportunity while focusing on different possible outcomes?
I have no empirical data to explain what happened on that beach — or to me. This is just who I am, likely because a long career in compliance has trained me to look at everything through the lens of risk.
The risk gap in AI priorities
Perhaps that is why I didn’t even flinch when I read Delta Media Group’s latest analysis of AI concerns among brokerage leaders, with women posting greater concern about regulatory compliance and data risks. I simply thought: Yes, that sounds about right.
Delta’s three-year analysis found that brokerage leaders remain as worried about AI risk and liability as they were when the company began measuring those concerns in 2024. The average “worry score” was 6.50 out of 10 in 2024, fell to 5.80 in 2025 and climbed back to 6.38 in 2026.
Among female brokerage leaders, 71.4 percent identified compliance with real estate regulations as an AI concern, compared with 39.1 percent of men. Data privacy and security concerned 65.7 percent of women, compared with 48.4 percent of men.
Meanwhile, men were almost twice as likely to identify uncertainty about cost and return on investment as a concern: 51.6 percent, compared with 28.6 percent of women.
The survey reveals that women aren’t more worried about AI than men — they are worried about different things. While male leaders focus on whether the investment will pay off, female leaders are more likely to prioritize regulatory and legal exposure.
Honestly, I don’t care who you are or where you fall on that survey. And maybe “worry” is not the best word for what the survey measured. More accurately, it is risk awareness — or, as I prefer to call it, vigilance.
Instead of asking only what AI can do, we all need to be asking what it is permitted to do, what information it is collecting, whether its output is accurate, who is reviewing it, and who will be responsible when it gets something wrong. Scratch that: A judge or the government will surely answer that last question.
Summer, why the attitude? Because these consequences are no longer confined to my compliance-wired imagination. They are real.
Earlier this year, a federal judge sanctioned the managing partner of a California law firm after a junior attorney submitted a brief containing a nonexistent citation. According to the court, the false citation was caused, in part, by AI use — and, ultimately, by a lack of care and supervision.
The managing partner did not draft or sign the brief, but he remained counsel of record. The court found that he had failed in his supervisory responsibilities, fined him and ordered him to complete training on attorney supervision and the ethical use of AI.
I like this story because it is a warning shot from a neighboring industry. Substitute “broker” for “managing partner” and “agent” for “junior attorney,” and the compliance problem becomes crystal clear. Like a flare, out in the ocean.
Some brokers may have no idea which AI tools their agents are using, what client information they are entering or what AI-generated representations are reaching consumers. And “I didn’t know” has never been a safe defense.
In March, the California Department of Real Estate warned that using AI to conduct licensed activity may be equivalent to asking an unlicensed assistant to perform licensed activity. The DRE also cautioned that brokers could face disciplinary action for failing to supervise their agents’ use of AI.
The cost of reverse compliance
The DRE’s message is not anti-innovation. It’s a stern invitation to put protections in place before things go awry. I have written about this concept before, which I call “don’t reverse comply.”
Reverse compliance happens when a company adopts a practice, gets into trouble and only then learns what compliance required. A lawsuit, regulatory investigation, consumer complaint or disciplinary action becomes the event that finally forces the company to establish policies, supervision and training.
That is an unnecessarily painful — and potentially expensive — way to learn. Then there is the reputational damage, which AI can’t make disappear.
Of course, the answer is not to avoid AI. It is to understand how the technology is being used, identify where it intersects with existing legal and professional duties, and build meaningful guardrails before a regulator or plaintiff’s attorney identifies the problem for you.
Vigilance is your compliance advantage
Worry about AI risk? Yes, you should.
The women in Delta’s survey are not fearful or resistant to change. I view their concern as an advantage. They are thinking about regulatory compliance in the present—not in reverse.
Tom Petty once sang, “I’m learning to fly, but I ain’t got wings.” Great song.
Innovation requires a willingness to leave the ground. But before we celebrate how quickly or how high AI allows real estate to fly, we need wings or protocols in place to protect consumers, agents and brokerages when something goes wrong.
Worrying about AI is about vigilance, not fear. That is your advantage in this business. I promise.
Writer’s note: The opinions and recommendations expressed in this article are based on Summer Goralik’s experience as a real estate compliance consultant and former investigator for the California Department of Real Estate. They are provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers should consult with their brokerage and/or qualified legal counsel in their jurisdiction for guidance on specific situations.
Summer Goralik is a real estate compliance consultant and former CA DRE Investigator in Huntington Beach, California. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
