Prepared by UNO | April 25, 2026 | Ohio Q3 Launch
The three channels to pursue are: (1) Ohio county auditor public records — entirely lawful, no TOS gate, automated bulk download is legitimate, and recent-transfer data directly targets motivated sellers; (2) Craigslist FSBO listings — TOS prohibits bots, but the legal risk post-C&D is manageable for low-volume manual or semi-manual outreach, and the hiQ precedent limits CFAA exposure on public pages if no C&D has been issued; (3) Inbound self-onboarding via Houzeo/flat-fee MLS positioning — zero legal risk, sellers come to you. The three channels to avoid are: (1) Zillow automated scraping — explicit TOS prohibition, Imperva bot detection, and Bridge Interactive API access requires MLS partnership that Agent9 does not yet have; (2) Facebook Marketplace — Meta has demonstrated willingness to enforce aggressively and the platform walls require login, creating CFAA "unauthorized access" exposure; (3) Realtor.com — same MLS-syndication lock as Zillow, same explicit TOS prohibition, no public API. On the tortious interference question: targeting sellers currently under exclusive listing contracts is the highest legal exposure item in this entire plan. Ohio recognizes the tort, the statute of limitations is six years, and a realtor who loses a commission to Agent9 because their client cancelled an exclusive agreement has a colorable claim. However, actual litigation risk is low if Agent9 markets generally rather than targeting specific named contract-holders — the "knowledge of the specific contract" element is hard to prove if outreach is broad-based rather than individualized.
What it offers: ~769 active FSBO listings in Ohio at any point (Zillow FSBO search, April 2026). Also carries agent-listed properties (MLS-syndicated), total Ohio inventory likely 15,000–25,000 active listings. FSBO listings include seller-provided phone/email in many cases. Agent listings show agent contact only. Data is near real-time, refreshed daily.
Is automated scraping prohibited?
Category: (a) Explicitly prohibited.
Zillow TOS states verbatim: "You may not use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Services for any purpose without our express written permission." robots.txt disallows /homes/ and /homedetails/ — the exact paths containing listing data. Source: Zillow Terms of Use; Zillow robots.txt.
Legal risk if done anyway: High. Zillow runs Imperva WAF — practical detection risk is near-certain at scale. Legal exposure layers: (1) breach of contract (TOS violation); (2) CFAA — Zillow could argue unauthorized access after C&D (the 3Taps precedent, not hiQ, governs once a C&D issues); (3) copyright in the compilation of listings. Civil injunction + damages is the most likely outcome, not criminal prosecution. The hiQ v. LinkedIn precedent helps on CFAA but only for pre-C&D scraping of public pages, and only in the 9th Circuit (Ohio is 6th Circuit, which has not adopted hiQ). Source: hiQ v. LinkedIn final outcome; Craigslist v. 3Taps.
Workaround:
What it offers: Full MLS-syndicated inventory for Ohio. FSBO listings are a small subset. Agent listings are the majority. Contact info typically routes through agent, not directly to seller.
Is automated scraping prohibited? Category: (a) Explicitly prohibited. Realtor.com TOS prohibits "automated data extraction, crawling, and bots" and any access without express written permission from Move, Inc. Source: ScrapeOps Realtor teardown; WebScraping.AI Realtor penalties.
Legal risk if done anyway: High. Same exposure stack as Zillow: TOS breach of contract, CFAA post-C&D, misappropriation. Additionally, Move Inc. is a large company (News Corp subsidiary) with resources to litigate. No public API. Source: same as above.
Workaround:
What it offers: Flat-fee MLS listings. Sellers self-list here specifically to avoid traditional realtor commissions — this is Agent9's ideal audience. Ohio-specific volume is smaller than Zillow (Houzeo is a platform, not an aggregator), but conversion intent is higher. Contact info often visible to registered users.
Is automated scraping prohibited? Category: (b) Grey area / likely prohibited. Houzeo TOS prohibits reproducing, distributing, or creating derivative works from their content without written consent, and prohibits interference with services. No explicit anti-bot clause found in publicly accessible TOS summary, but the content restriction language functionally covers automated harvest. Source: Houzeo Terms of Use.
Legal risk if done anyway: Low-to-medium. Houzeo is a smaller company and enforcement appetite is unknown. Breach of contract (TOS) exposure exists. CFAA exposure is low if listings are publicly visible without login. Copyright/misappropriation is the more likely civil theory. No known precedent of Houzeo litigation against scrapers.
Workaround:
What it offers: These are FSBO-specific platforms. Sellers here have explicitly chosen to go unrepresented — highest intent match for Agent9. Combined Ohio inventory is smaller than Zillow FSBO (rough estimate: 100–300 active Ohio listings across all platforms at any time). ForSaleByOwner.com is the largest.
Is automated scraping prohibited? Category: (b) Grey area / likely prohibited. ForSaleByOwner.com TOS prohibits copying, modifying, selling, or distributing content without consent. The 3i Data Scraping firm advertises scraping these platforms commercially, suggesting these sites have not yet litigated aggressively. Beycome and Homie's TOS were not accessible for direct quote — assume standard content-restriction language applies. Source: ForSaleByOwner.com T&C; 3i Data Scraping FSBO services.
Legal risk if done anyway: Low-to-medium. These are smaller companies. CFAA exposure is low for publicly visible listings. TOS breach is the primary risk. No known enforcement history against scrapers at these platforms.
Workaround:
What it offers: Real estate listings including FSBO. Volume in Ohio is moderate and unquantified — Facebook does not publish Marketplace listing counts. Contact occurs through Facebook Messenger, not phone/email. Data is behind login wall.
Is automated scraping prohibited? Category: (a) Explicitly prohibited. Meta's Automated Data Collection Terms define prohibited "Automated Data Collection" broadly, covering web scrapers, bots, robots, spiders, and crawlers. The platform requires login to view most Marketplace listings, which creates the login-wall CFAA exposure that makes this materially different from public-page scraping. Source: Facebook Automated Data Collection Terms.
Legal risk if done anyway: High. Login requirement means scraping is "unauthorized access" under CFAA even before a C&D. Meta enforces aggressively (see BrandTotal case). Civil CFAA liability plus breach of contract. Additionally, seller contact is through Messenger — you cannot extract phone/email easily. Source: ScrapeOps Facebook teardown.
Workaround:
What it offers: Housing/FSBO section. Ohio volume is moderate — Craigslist FSBO posters tend to be price-sensitive sellers. Contact info (phone, email) is often directly in the listing. Data refreshes constantly but listings are free and often lower quality.
Is automated scraping prohibited? Category: (a) Explicitly prohibited. Craigslist TOS explicitly prohibits "robots, spiders, scripts, scrapers, crawlers." Craigslist has litigated this aggressively: $1M judgment against 3Taps (2013), $31M settlement with Instamotor (2017), RadPad lawsuit (2017). The 3Taps ruling established that an IP block + C&D creates CFAA "unauthorized access" even for public pages. Source: Craigslist v. 3Taps Wikipedia; Proskauer $31M settlement.
Legal risk if done anyway: Medium-to-high if operating at scale. Craigslist detects and blocks automated access rapidly. If they issue a C&D and you continue, CFAA exposure is real — they have a demonstrated litigation track record. For low-volume manual review of publicly visible listings: lower risk, but still TOS violation. The $60M judgment cited in LinkedIn posts relates to a separate enforcement action — Craigslist is not afraid to sue.
Workaround:
What it offers: MLS IDX feeds are the licensed data distribution mechanism for licensed real estate brokers to display listings on their websites. Ohio's primary MLSes include Columbus MLS (yes, rebranded to MLS Now), Cincinnati MLS (yes, part of Western Regional Information Systems), and CLE/NEO MLS. IDX covers active listings including some FSBO-adjacent flat-fee MLS listings. Volume: all active Ohio listings.
Is automated scraping prohibited? Category: (c) Permitted via official channel — but only for licensed participants. NAR's IDX Policy (Policy Statement 7.58) limits IDX participation to licensed brokers who are MLS members. The 2025 NAR MLS handbook changes gave local MLSes discretion over access rules, but the default remains: non-licensed entities cannot access IDX feeds. Scraping the public IDX display pages (broker websites that show IDX data) would violate those brokers' website TOS, not the MLS directly. Source: NAR IDX Policy 7.58; 2025 MLS changes summary.
Legal risk if done anyway: Low for scraping public IDX display sites (broker websites showing IDX listings). Medium if attempting to access the MLS data feed directly without authorization.
Workaround:
What it offers: Public record property data — owner name, owner mailing address, parcel ID, transfer history, assessed value, deed date. Critically: recent transfer records show who just bought (new owners may want to sell) and the auditor records also reflect current ownership of listed-but-unsold properties. Ohio Revised Code requires these records to be public. Major counties (Franklin, Cuyahoga, Hamilton, Summit) have online search tools and bulk data download options.
Is automated scraping prohibited? Category: (d) Public record / no TOS gate. Ohio public records law (Ohio Revised Code Chapter 149) mandates public access to property transfer records. County auditor sites are government portals. Most do not have TOS that prohibit automated access. robots.txt restrictions vary by county site. However, aggressive high-volume scraping of a government site could theoretically constitute interference with government operations — use respectful rate limits.
Legal risk if done anyway: Low. This is genuinely public record. No CFAA exposure (government sites, not unauthorized computer access). No copyright in factual government records under Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone (1991 SCOTUS). Key limitation: auditor records show the owner, not the listing agent or listing status — you cannot directly pull "currently listed" from auditor data alone.
Workaround:
(Covered under item 4 above — Beycome / ForSaleByOwner.com / Homie cluster. See that entry.)
What it offers: Yard signs with phone numbers are the oldest FSBO signal. Street View provides historical imagery, not live. Drive-by physical capture provides real-time data. Volume depends on methodology.
Is automated scraping prohibited? Category: (b) Grey area / mixed. Google Street View imagery is publicly accessible — Google does not restrict viewing. Using it to extract text (phone numbers from signs) via OCR is technically permitted from a Street View TOS standpoint but Street View imagery may be months or years stale. Physical drive-by is public observation from public roads — fully legal. Photographing a yard sign visible from a public road does not constitute trespass or privacy violation. Source: Google Street View Policy; Google privacy concerns overview.
Legal risk if done anyway: Low for the data collection itself. The phone number on a yard sign is voluntarily published to the public. Cold calling that number does carry TCPA risk (Telephone Consumer Protection Act) if using autodialer — manual calls are safer. The FCC's January 2025 1-to-1 consent rule tightens automated outreach for real estate services specifically. Source: FTC CAN-SPAM guide; FCC 1-to-1 consent rule.
Workaround:
The specific scenario: Agent9 contacts a seller currently under an exclusive listing agreement with a realtor. Agent9 pitches them on canceling the agreement and using Agent9 instead. The realtor loses a commission. Can the realtor sue Agent9?
Ohio law answer: Yes, potentially. Ohio recognizes tortious interference with contract. The elements are: (1) existence of a contract; (2) defendant's knowledge of that contract; (3) intentional and unjustified interference; (4) resulting damages. A realtor who can prove Agent9 knew the seller was under exclusive contract and actively persuaded them to cancel has a colorable claim. Ohio statute of limitations is six years. Source: CSU Cleveland State Law Review analysis; Smith v. National Western Life, 2017-Ohio-4184.
The "knowledge" problem: The key vulnerability is element (2). If Agent9 sends a mass marketing email to all Ohio homeowners with active listings — including those under exclusive contracts — and a seller cancels their contract in response, Agent9's knowledge of that specific contract is ambiguous. Courts have not uniformly held that general marketing awareness equals tortious interference knowledge. Targeted outreach to a named seller whose specific contract terms Agent9 knows creates much higher exposure.
Privilege defense: Ohio recognizes a "justification" or "privilege" defense — competition and legitimate business competition can defeat a tortious interference claim. Agent9 offering a better-priced service is legitimate competition. However, this defense is weakest when the interference is direct and knowing (e.g., Agent9 says "cancel your contract with Remax, use us instead").
Practical risk level: Low to medium for broad-based marketing. Medium to high for targeted outreach to identified listed-with-agent sellers where Agent9 explicitly pitches contract cancellation. The safest framing is "list your next property with Agent9" or "when your current listing period ends, consider Agent9" — not "cancel your agreement now."
Recourse is against the seller, too: The exclusive listing agreement gives the listing brokerage the right to their commission even if the seller cancels and sells through another channel during the listing period, in most Ohio listing agreements. The seller bears primary exposure; Agent9 bears secondary. But a creative plaintiff's attorney could join both.
Do not pursue: Automated scraping of Zillow, Realtor.com, or Facebook Marketplace at any scale before securing legal counsel and a cease-and-desist risk assessment.
Research cutoff: April 25, 2026. Case law and TOS language verified via live web research. All TOS citations are based on publicly available terms pages as of this date — re-verify before acting on any specific TOS quote, as platforms update terms without notice.