There is a new real estate firm in town, but one of its founders is probably familiar to many in the real estate industry. Meet Landian, a real estate startup founded by Bryan Galen, Neal Batra and Josh Sitzer — yes, the same Sitzer who filed the now infamous Sitzer/Burnett commission lawsuit.
In an interview with TechCrunch, which first broke the news of Landian’s debut, Sitzer said his frustration with having to pay a 3% commission to a buyer’s agent on the sale of his Kansas City home in 2017 prompted the lawsuit.
After four years of litigation and a jury verdict that found the industry liable for colluding to artificially inflate agent commissions, NAR and the four corporate brokerage defendants have all settled Sitzer’s lawsuit and several copycat suits.
“I wouldn’t say I had expectations in the beginning, as it was a multi-year battle of ups and downs, but I had enough confidence in my position to commit to taking action,” Sitzer told TechCrunch.
Sitzer’s legal action not only resulted in financial settlements, but also business practice changes that went into effect earlier this month, the most notable being the removal of buyer broker compensation from the MLS and mandatory buyer broker agreements.
In an attempt to capitalize on the real estate industry’s new normal, Sitzer teamed up with Batra and Galen, whose startup fintech firm Zero was acquired by Avant in 2021, to found Landian.
The website, which claims it is not a brokerage, allows homebuyers to select services from real estate agents and pay for them a la carte. The company describes itself as “a platform that schedules and coordinates service contracts between homebuyers and licensed real estate agents who work for their own brokerages, as well as a software tool that helps buyers prepare their own offers.”
“Landian operates as a technology platform providing AI-driven services to facilitate real estate transactions. This distinction means that while we assist in the process of buying or selling real estate, we do not represent clients as a broker or agent would,” the company states on its FAQ page. “Our services are designed to complement your transaction efforts, offering a streamlined, efficient alternative to traditional brokerage services without providing legal or financial advice.”
The site allows users to import a listing from any real estate site and then book a home tour or prepare an offer with a licensed local agent, without owing a traditional commission. Instead, Landian utilizes a flat fee model, giving buyers the option to pay as they go for services or at the closing.
Landian charges buyers $49 for each home tour, $199 for an offer preparation session with an agent, and $99 for an AI-powered offer preparation session. Additionally, if the buyer would like a higher level of service, Landian charges $1,799 for a package that includes up to five home tours and two offer prep sessions. Added services, like additional home tours, offer prep sessions or closing consultations, are still available a la carte.
If buyers choose to utilize this tier of service, they pay the total amount due for the services they utilized at closing. Buyers will owe that total if they purchase a house in the U.S. or Canada within 90 days of signing up, or if they purchase any house where they used Landian to schedule a tour or submit an offer on within one year. If a buyer does not successfully close on a property, Landian says that they will not owe the firm or their agent anything.
If buyers utilize just an offer prep session and the seller rejects the offer, the flat fee for the offer prep session still applies, but support for handling counteroffers is part of the original flat fee.
The company claims it saves consumers an average of $15,000 per transaction.
Agents who sign on to the Landian platform will still be brokered at their brokerage and not by Landian. In order to comply with the terms of the NAR settlement, agents working with clients on the Landian platform must sign a Landian Buyer-Broker Agreement, which the firm says is “e-signed by the buyer before any services, such as property tours or offer preparation, are provided. The agreement ensures that the compensation for your services is clearly outlined and objectively ascertainable, in compliance with the latest NAR settlement changes.”
“By using the Landian platform, both you and your client are protected by a legally sound, transparent agreement that aligns with industry regulations and best practices,” the firm’s FAQ page states.
Agents who meet a client through the Landian platform must maintain all of their communication with that client within the platform.
Landian is currently available to serve clients in all districts, states, territories and provinces of the U.S. and Canada. The company has yet to raise external capital and is so far operating with friends and family money. According to TechCrunch, it is in the process of raising a seed funding round.
Landian did not return a request for comment.
How does Landians services “complement” your transaction efforts? It seems to me, it would be “replacing” the buying agents and almost eliminating the need for the buyers agents – not “complementing” their services. Back to your original case: The 3% to the buyer agent perhaps was not explained to you(Sitzer) by your listing agent although most sellers have to sign that they are ok to offer that percentage to a buyers agent. If you knew and agreed to 6% in total , you would be paying that 6% even if there were no buyers agent. If your listing agent brought in their own buyer, they would be expecting 6%. If a buyer agent brings in the buyer with the best offer that you like, it would be 6%. How were you financially harmed? By the way, how do you make money on your new platform called Landian?
Sitzer doesn’t understand what realtors do, if that was not already obvious as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. We are not robots who mechanically open up houses and write contracts, but professionals who provide a responsive consulting service to help people make decisions about buying and selling real estate with significant implications for their personal, family and financial lives, which the client only pays for if the decision results in closing of a transaction.
Their language on their website states a “typical buyer agent fee of 3%”. That is language professional Agents would never use as per the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which discourages any conversation about the “going rate”. I have been a Realtor for 26 years in 2 states and the buyer agency fee that was offered in the MLS varied. I also wonder how good is the Agent that would show a property and write a contract for $200? Are they attending the home inspection, are they advising their Client, are they an expert negotiator? Are their fiduciaries with the buyer? Most buyers would prefer to have a partner to guide them in purchasing what is usually the most expensive decision in their lifetime. How much money are they losing to have the door opened and a contract written and not have a trusted guide every step of the way?
The whole thing should be thrown out. Sitzer had the options to negotiate the percentage, choose any other REALTOR®, or sell it on his own as a FSBO. With all those options, where is there room for “colluding to artificially inflate agent commissions”? This is a total scam, and a money grab from the weasel Ketchmark. And the judge who allowed it should be thrown off the bench for doing so.