Buyers and sellers are still being duped. Brokerages hold the power, laws and forms fail to protect consumers, representation isn’t transparent, and brokerages can profit from both sides of the same deal.

The following talking points are part of an email dated October 21, 2026, sent to Florida lawmakers, the National Association of REALTORS®, Florida Realtors®, regional real estate associations, and the Florida Realtors® PAC. Despite being presented with these questions and concerns, they have yet to provide answers. Prior emails to members of the associations and lawmakers have NOT been answered. Emails

Perhaps they did not expect a Florida-licensed real estate broker to publicly challenge these issues. Lawmakers often encourage whistleblowers to speak up and expose potential wrongdoing. Yet, when these questions are raised, the response has been silence.

Why?

Before you read the full email, by clicking here, please read the following information below first.

CC: U.S. Department of Justice, news outlets, and others.

Questions they:

• National Association of Realtors® (NAR)
• Florida Realtors®
• Florida Regional Realtor Associations
• Florida Realtor PAC
• Florida Lawmakers
  • Approximately 80% of Florida lawmakers were endorsed by the Florida Realtors® PAC.
    • 103 out of 120 House Representatives were endorsed by the Florida Realtors® PAC. Well, …
    • You need 51 votes to get something changed.
• 15 lawmakers are affiliated with or associated with Florida Realtor® associations.
• Take a look at the 2026 endorsed list.

WON’T ANSWER? Why?

Here are the questions and everything else you need to know to understand what is going on.

1. What specific benefit does transaction brokerage provide to a buyer?
2. What specific benefit does it provide to a seller?
3. Why should it remain the default instead of single-agent representation?
4. Will you support clear, written disclosure of representation?
5. Will you support changing the forms to make all compensation transparent?
6. Will you explain what happens to compensation when there is no buyer’s agent?

The facts speak for themselves: These are simple questions, yet they remain unanswered. Could the answers expose whether the current system is structured to provide brokerages with advantages in representation, liability, and the potential to collect compensation connected to both sides of a transaction? If I am wrong, why does everyone remain silent? Are they simply hoping I will go away? That is not going to happen.

For a closer look at how the system works and what is really going on, explore the detailed information and videos below. Let’s start at the beginning:

What Was the Sitzer/Burnett Lawsuit About?

Did real estate commission rules limit competition?

Talking points:

• The lawsuit challenged real estate industry rules concerning buyer-broker compensation.
• Plaintiffs argued that the rules caused home sellers to pay inflated commissions.
• The case focused on practices involving the National Association of Realtors® (NAR), multiple listing services, and major brokerage companies.
• The lawsuit raised questions about competition, commission practices, and who ultimately bears the cost of buyer-broker compensation.

Key question: Were sellers paying more than they would have paid in a competitive market?

WHAT CHANGED AFTER THE SETTLEMENT?

What Changed With the MLS? Buyer-Agent Compensation Offers Removed

Talking Points:

• Offers of compensation to buyer brokers could no longer be made through the MLS by participating agents and brokers.
• Sellers could still agree to pay buyer-broker compensation outside the MLS.
• Compensation did not become illegal, nor were all sellers prohibited from contributing.
• The changes altered how compensation is communicated and negotiated.

Key Question:
Did changing where compensation is offered solve the underlying concerns about representation and payment?

Video 4 — What Changed With Buyer Agreements and Showings?

Written agreements before touring homes.

Talking points:

• Participating agents working with buyers must enter into written buyer agreements before touring homes, subject to the applicable rules and exceptions.
• The agreement must address compensation.
• Buyers should understand their obligations before signing.
• The changes did not automatically establish single-agent representation as the default in Florida.

Key question: Did the settlement change who represents the buyer, or primarily how the buyer’s agent is engaged and compensated?

Sources for Slides 3–4: NAR settlement information and official settlement FAQs.

WHAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED?

Video 5 — Florida Statute §475.278: Transaction Brokerage

The lawsuit changed compensation practices. What about representation?

Talking points:

• Florida law presumes transaction brokerage unless another relationship is established in writing.
• Transaction brokerage provides limited representation, not the same fiduciary representation as a single agent.
• A brokerage can provide limited services to both sides of a transaction.
• The settlement did not change Florida’s statutory presumption to single-agent representation.

Key question: Why was Florida’s default representation system not changed as part of these reforms?

Source: Florida Statute §475.278.

Is the Ability to Receive Compensation From Both Sides Part of the Problem?

Who benefits from the current arrangement?

Talking points:

• Under certain agreements, a brokerage may receive compensation connected to both the seller and the buyer.
• If both agents work for the same brokerage, the total compensation arrangements deserve particular scrutiny.
• The seller may believe the listing fee is the brokerage’s total compensation.
• The buyer may believe that avoiding a buyer’s agent means avoiding that additional cost.

My central question: Could the ability to earn compensation connected to both sides help explain resistance to changing Florida’s transaction-broker default?

I cannot establish that this is the reason the law has not changed. I am asking the associations and lawmakers to explain why they support retaining the current system and what specific consumer benefit it provides.

WHY IS THERE NO CLEAR DISCLOSURE OF REPRESENTATION? Why Isn’t Representation Explained Up Front?

Single Agent. Transaction Broker. No Brokerage Relationship.

Talking points:

• Buyers and sellers should know which relationship applies before signing.
• The differences should be explained in plain language.
• Consumers should understand the duties they receive and the duties that do not apply.
• The relationship should be prominent on the first page, not buried in the agreement.

My concern: Why have the forms and disclosures not been designed to make these differences unmistakable?

Could Clear Disclosure Challenge the Current System?

What happens when consumers understand the difference?

Talking points:

• If consumers were clearly told that transaction brokerage provides limited, nonfiduciary representation, some might ask why it is the default.
• They might ask why a brokerage can work with both sides.
• They might ask how the brokerage is compensated when the buyer has no agent.
• They might choose single-agent representation instead.

My concern: Does the current system benefit from consumers not fully understanding the differences?

I believe this deserves an answer. I am not claiming to know the private motives of every association or brokerage. I am asking why clear, prominent disclosure has not become the standard.

HOW THE FORMS HANDLE COMPENSATION.  What Do the Actual Forms Say?

Read the agreement. Follow the money.

Talking points:

• The EBBA-7tb is the buyer agreement for transaction brokerage.
• The EBBA-7sa covers single-agent representation.
• The ERS-20tb is the transaction-broker listing agreement.
• Compensation terms appear in multiple paragraphs of the listing agreement.
• Consumers may have difficulty understanding how all the provisions work together.

My proposal: Identify the relationship clearly and consolidate compensation provisions so buyers and sellers can see the complete arrangement.

What If the Buyer Has No Agent?

Does the consumer save money? Loopholes provided via real estate forms. A sneak peek here.

Talking points:

• A buyer may decide not to hire a buyer’s agent.
• The buyer may expect that the decision will save money.
• Depending on the listing agreement, the listing brokerage may still be entitled to compensation that does not depend on a separate buyer’s brokerage being involved.
• The result depends on the actual agreement and the services provided.

Key questions:

• Does the seller save money?
• Does the buyer receive a financial benefit?
• Can the listing brokerage retain compensation the consumer expected would not be paid?

My proposal: The agreement should state clearly what the listing brokerage receives when a buyer has an agent and when the buyer does not.

Could the Showing Agreement Create Pressure?

Does the buyer understand the compensation agreement?

Talking points:

• Buyers may sign showing or buyer-broker agreements before touring homes.
• They should understand the agreed fee and who is responsible for paying it.
• Agents should not mislead buyers by claiming that compensation must be paid to the listing brokerage if the buyer does not agree to pay the buyer’s agent.
• Compensation should be explained accurately, without pressure.

Key question: Are consumers making informed decisions, or are complicated agreements making it harder to understand the alternatives?

WHAT SHOULD CHANGE? Make Single-Agent Representation the Default

The highest level of representation by default. They, the associations and lawmakers show NO interest it.

Talking points:

• I support changing Florida’s presumption from transaction brokerage to single-agent representation.
• Transaction brokerage would remain available when a consumer knowingly chooses it.
• The consumer should receive a clear disclosure and affirmatively consent in writing.
• Consumers should not have to understand the entire real estate industry to know who represents them.

Make Compensation Completely Transparent

Who pays? Who receives? What happens if there is no buyer’s agent?

Talking points:

• Clearly state the listing brokerage’s compensation.
• Separately state any buyer-broker compensation.
• Explain what happens when no buyer’s brokerage is involved.
• Disclose whether the listing brokerage may receive additional compensation.
• Identify transaction fees and other broker charges.
• Avoid overlapping clauses that obscure the total payment arrangement.

• View Email & Video

My proposal: Consumers should be able to understand the total compensation arrangement before signing.

WHO LOOKED OUT FOR THE CONSUMER? WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE?  Who Created the Forms and Who Represented Consumers?

Who looked out for the buyer and seller?

Talking points:

• I asked Florida Realtors® who participated in creating or revising the forms from a consumer-protection perspective.
• I requested the names of those individuals.
• I also raised questions with Realtor® associations and lawmakers.
• In the correspondence I described, I stated that my central questions remained unanswered.

Key question: Who ensured that the forms were designed around the interests of buyers and sellers?

Florida Realtors® PAC and Lawmakers

103 out of 120 Florida House members endorsed.

Talking points:

• According to my review of the 2024 election-cycle records, the Florida Realtors® PAC endorsed candidates in 103 of Florida’s 120 House districts.
• 15 lawmakers are also affiliated or associated with Florida Real Estate Associations. They, not surprised, also stay silent
• That is approximately 86% of the chamber.
• This raises questions about the relationship between industry political involvement and laws governing that industry.

Key question: How can the public be confident that consumer-protection concerns receive independent consideration?

A PAC endorsement alone does not prove that a lawmaker was influenced or acted improperly. The point is to ask for transparency and accountability.

Final Message: Who Do the Forms Benefit?

Consumer protection or brokerage convenience?

Talking points:

The Sitzer/Burnett lawsuit challenged commission practices. The settlement changed important rules involving MLS compensation offers and buyer agreements.

But Florida still presumes transaction brokerage, and consumers still need clear answers about representation and compensation.

I believe the forms should make it easy for buyers and sellers to understand who represents them, what they pay, and where their money goes.

If transaction brokerage is the best default for consumers, explain why.

If the current forms are fair and transparent, show us how.

And if these changes are unnecessary, explain why.

Closing question:

Who do these forms really benefit—the consumer, the brokerage, or both?

Visit BeenDuped.com for related correspondence and supporting materials.