A property buyer advisor — in the United States, a buyer’s agent — is now a normal part of every American home purchase. It wasn’t always so. It took nearly a century, a federal study, a landslide in California and a verdict worth almost $1.8 billion for buyers to get a professional on their side. Here is that story, and what it teaches anyone buying property in Italy today.
A house on a hill: the case that changed everything
In May 1976, Leticia Easton bought a house in Diablo, California, east of San Francisco. It had a pool, a guest house and about 3,000 square feet of living space, for $170,000.
The agents involved had noticed warning signs: netting on the slopes, uneven floors, a retaining wall under construction. Nobody looked further and nobody told the buyer. Soon after she moved in, the hill gave way: $20,000 in damage and repairs estimated at another $213,000.
Easton believed the agent who guided her purchase was working for her. Legally, he was not. That gap between what buyers believe and what the law says is where the story of the American buyer’s agent begins.
Subagency: when every agent worked for the seller
For most of the twentieth century, US home sales ran on a lopsided system. The seller hired a listing broker, who shared the property through the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). The MLS grew fast from the 1920s and became central after the Second World War.
Any other agent who brought a buyer joined the deal as a subagent of the seller. They showed homes and wrote up offers, but their loyalty and their commission came from the seller.
The buyer was a customer, not a client. The person helping them decide how much to offer had a duty to get the seller the highest price.
1983: the FTC study that put a number on the problem
In December 1983, the Federal Trade Commission published The Residential Real Estate Brokerage Industry, a staff report that included a consumer survey.
According to the National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents, 71% of buyers surveyed thought the agent showing them homes worked for them. In fact, that agent was the seller’s subagent. Other accounts of the study report that more than half of buyers did not know they were unrepresented.
The study did not create the buyer’s agent overnight. But it pushed US states to require agents to disclose, in writing, whom they actually represent.
Easton v. Strassburger: why buyers need an independent property advisor
Leticia Easton sued. It emerged that the previous owner had known about a smaller slide in 1973 and had not told the agents. The agents argued that checking soil stability was the buyer’s job, not theirs.
In 1984, in Easton v. Strassburger, a California appeals court disagreed. Brokers had a duty to carry out a reasonably competent and diligent inspection and to disclose what they found. The agents were held liable for missing signs any prudent person would have noticed.
The ruling was vague and the industry was alarmed. In 1986, California’s legislature clarified the law: the seller’s agent must make a diligent visual inspection and disclose material facts, but deeper checks — real property due diligence — remain the buyer’s responsibility. Other states followed.
The result was a paradox. Sellers’ agents were now protected, and caveat emptor — buyer beware — became the norm by the late 1980s. If buyers had to protect themselves, they needed someone whose only job was to protect them.
The pioneers of the buyer’s agent
The first buyer’s advisors were seen as rebels. In 1988, Denver Realtor Barry Miller founded the Real Estate Buyer’s Agent Council (REBAC) to promote exclusive buyer representation. He also built Buyer’s Resource, a franchise of brokerages that worked only for buyers.
Early REBAC often clashed with the National Association of Realtors, which still treated subagency as the standard. Others went it alone: Tom Early opened one of the first buyer-only brokerages in 1989, and Ron Henderson launched his in 1993.
In the mid-1990s, the purists founded the National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents (NAEBA). Its members take no listings, promote no properties and never represent sellers. Only then, they argued, can an advisor be truly free of conflicts of interest.
The 1990s: the buyer’s agent becomes the standard
What really changed the industry was legal risk. In 1993, a Minnesota class action over undisclosed dual agency ended with a brokerage paying more than $18.2 million. Firms everywhere saw the danger of quietly serving both sides.
State after state rewrote its rules, moving away from subagency toward direct representation of buyers. In 1996, the National Association of Realtors bought REBAC itself, then about 6,200 members strong, and formally recognized buyer representation.
By 2000, a once-radical idea was the norm. Most American buyers now sign with an agent who, at least on paper, works for them.
2023-2024: the Kansas City verdict and the written buyer agreement
One thing had not changed since the subagency era: who pays. The buyer’s agent was still usually paid by the seller, through a commission split offered on the MLS. Critics said this kept fees high and blurred loyalties.
On 31 October 2023, after less than two and a half hours of deliberation, a federal jury in Kansas City ruled against the National Association of Realtors and several large brokerages in Sitzer/Burnett. It awarded home sellers about $1.78 billion, which could be trebled to over $5 billion under antitrust law.
In March 2024, NAR settled for $418 million. New rules took effect on 17 August 2024:
- offers of compensation to buyer’s agents can no longer appear on Realtor-run MLSs;
- buyers must sign a written agreement with their agent before touring a home, stating services and fees.
Nearly fifty years after Leticia Easton’s landslide, US law asks every buyer the question she never could: who is my agent working for, and who pays them?
Buying property in Italy: why you need a property buyer advisor
Italy today looks much like America before the reforms. Most agencies work for the seller. Foreign buyers in Italy face the land registry, mortgage records, municipal permits and the notary, often in a language that is not their own. Many assume the agent showing them a villa on the lake is looking out for them.
The American story offers three lessons for anyone buying property in Italy:
- Representation must be explicit. Buyers should know, in writing, whom their advisor works for.
- Payment shapes loyalty. An advisor paid only by the buyer has no reason to push a higher price.
- Independence is a profession. It took America decades of studies, lawsuits and reform to accept that buyers deserve their own expert.
Studio Dimoria is an independent property advisor working only for the buyer. We have no properties to sell and take no fees from sellers. We handle property search, due diligence, negotiation and the final deed, as the US decided every buyer deserves. Contact us for a first consultation.
Property buyer advisor: frequently asked questions
What is a property buyer advisor? A property advisor who represents only the buyer: finding the property, checking its documents, negotiating the price and coordinating every step to the deed.
What is the difference between a buyer’s agent and a real estate agent? A traditional real estate agent is usually hired by the seller. A buyer’s agent is hired and paid by the buyer, so there is no conflict of interest over the price.
When did the buyer’s agent appear in the United States? The role spread from the late 1980s, after the 1983 FTC study and the Easton v. Strassburger ruling. By the 1990s it was standard practice.
Can a foreign buyer purchase property in Italy with an independent advisor? Yes. The advisor supports the buyer through search, due diligence, negotiation and the deed, coordinating the notary, lawyer and accountant.
Leave a Reply