Two days ago, real estate tech strategist Mike DelPrete shared screenshots on LinkedIn showing Google Sponsored Ads that appeared to contain live residential listings. On the surface, this looks like ordinary digital advertising. In reality, it cuts directly into one of the most regulated areas of real estate brokerage: advertising authority and consent. On the same post, HouseCanary indicates that the MLS has approved this (presumably without the broker’s consent).
Under long-standing state real estate licensing laws, MLS rules, and NAR policy, a broker may not advertise another broker’s listing without the listing broker’s prior, express consent. This principle exists to protect fiduciary responsibility, prevent consumer confusion, and ensure accountability for representations made to the public. Advertising is treated differently from “display.” Advertising implies promotion, solicitation, and lead capture, not passive information access. In most states, advertising another broker’s product without consent can trigger violations related to false advertising, unauthorized practice, misrepresentation, and inducement. MLS participation agreements reinforce this by limiting how listing content may be used, where it may appear, and who may benefit commercially from it. IDX is the industry’s narrow carve-out. It is a reciprocal consent framework that allows brokers to display each other’s listings, but only within tightly defined boundaries. IDX permission is limited to broker-controlled displays, typically the broker’s website and closely related derivatives such as branded mobile apps. IDX does not grant advertising rights, does not permit resale or paid promotion of listings, and does not extend to third-party media platforms where the broker does not control the user experience, branding, or context.
This distinction matters here. As the industry has already debated with portal-to-AI integrations, a Google search results page is not the broker’s display. It is Google’s display. Sponsored ads amplify this problem because they are explicitly advertising, not informational browsing. When listings appear inside paid Google ads, they are being promoted, targeted, and monetized in a third-party environment that sits outside the IDX framework. IDX consent does not transfer to Google, nor to any advertiser using Google as the distribution channel.
The situation becomes more complex given the parties involved. HouseCanary holds a brokerage license for IDX licensing purposes. The Google ads, however, list ComeHome as the sponsor. ComeHome is a proprietary platform built for mortgage lenders, not a brokerage display. This creates a multi-layered problem: advertising listings without listing broker consent, using IDX-licensed data for paid advertising, placing listings on a non-broker third-party platform, and enabling a mortgage-centric product to commercially benefit from brokerage content. Each of these elements raises potential violations of MLS participation agreements, IDX rules, advertising statutes, and state license law.
This is not a minor technical interpretation. IDX was never designed to allow listings to be turned into paid media inventory on global ad networks. If this practice stands, it redefines IDX from a display-based cooperation agreement into an advertising license, something neither MLSs nor brokers have agreed to. As MLSs and regulators look more closely at AI, search, and third-party integrations, this use case is likely to become a flashpoint. The industry has already learned, often through litigation, that stretching IDX beyond its written intent carries real risk.
In a response, HouseCanary posted on Linkedin to defend their actions. Summary of HouseCanary’s LinkedIn Response
HouseCanary states that the Google activity tied to ComeHome is a limited, controlled experiment designed to explore new ways of marketing listings and improving consumer discovery. The company positions the effort as intentional innovation rather than broad deployment. According to HouseCanary, all MLSs in the affected regions were notified in advance, and the company claims to be working directly with those MLSs in ongoing communication throughout the test. HouseCanary emphasizes that any questions or concerns raised by MLSs are being addressed promptly. The company frames the initiative as an effort to balance experimentation with compliance, stressing a commitment to staying aligned with MLS rules and expectations while continuing to collaborate closely with MLS leadership and other industry stakeholders.
If true, this statement is terrifying. It indicates that HouseCanary met with the MLS. Told them how they were going to use the data to advertise for mortgage leads, and the MLS approved it. If this is true, the MLS itself is in violation of its MLS participation agreement that extends a limited license from the Broker to the MLS. That limited license does not allow the MLS to sell or authorize the broker’s listing content beyond the scope of providing MLS services. This scheme by HouseCanary and ComeHome is beyond the scope of MLS services as articulated in the participation agreements that we have reviewed over the past 25 years of MLS consulting. MLSs should also consider data shares and IDX sharing. If you are approving something like this and you are cooperating with another MLS on a data share or IDX sharing – you need to check with your cooperating MLS partner to make sure that they agree too.
As an aside – If you do a search on Bing – you will find a similar sponsored experience on Bing.
WAV Group published a whitepaper about IDX and the potential of this program to create an existential threat to MLSs in general. Schemes like this alongside issues related to AI use have changed the bargain for brokers participating in the MLS. At some point, brokers and agents will make a decision to leave the MLS, or join an MLS that is more aligned with their business goals in service to homebuyers and sellers.
