I got word that some Wyoming multiple listing services are pushing back on how the NAR settlement is being handled when it comes to sharing data. According to HousingWire, several MLSs in Wyoming, including operations in Cheyenne, Sheridan, Teton County and a few other areas, filed objections to how Judge Stephen Bough authorized the Gibson and Sitzer/Burnett lawsuit plaintiffs to notify all MLSs about their data sharing obligations under the settlement.
Here's what's got these Wyoming groups concerned: the settlement says MLSs that signed on have to let the plaintiffs access relevant listing data and class member information from third parties. But the Wyoming parties are saying they never got specific details about what data is actually being requested. They haven't seen formal subpoenas that spell out which data fields are needed, what time periods they cover, how the information will be formatted, what it'll cost to produce, or who's going to see it once it's handed over.
The real issue here is that MLS databases contain sensitive information that shouldn't just be handed over without careful review. These Wyoming MLSs say they want to work with the plaintiffs, but they need the ability to evaluate each specific request to make sure it's reasonable and that consumer privacy and proprietary business information are protected. They're asking the court to require the plaintiffs to be clear about exactly what they want and where it's going before any data gets turned over.
What happened is that a data provider called Financial Business Systems, which runs some MLS software platforms, refused to hand over data without explicit permission from each individual MLS. The plaintiffs say this data provider won't even tell them which MLSs are blocking the process. Judge Bough's order basically said if an MLS doesn't object within seven days of getting a notice, silence means they've given permission for the data to be shared. The Wyoming parties are asking the court to clarify that lack of response doesn't automatically mean consent until there's an actual detailed request that falls within what was agreed to in the settlement.
What I'm seeing locally is that we're still working through the real-world impacts of the NAR settlement, and it's clear that different parts of the country are wrestling with how to actually implement it. For Bay Area, Fremont, and East Bay brokers and agents, these kinds of procedural questions matter because the same settlement applies to our MLSs, and we need clarity about what data sharing looks like and what protections exist for our clients' information. We're watching to see how the courts resolve these disputes because it'll shape how much access plaintiffs really get to our listing data and member records.
