For decades, MasterFormat’s six-digit numbering system has served as the backbone of construction specifications across North America. From federal agencies and universities to private developers and subcontractors, the format is woven into contracts, project manuals, estimating systems and software platforms industry-wide.

Now, many professionals fear that infrastructure is being transformed into a subscription-controlled revenue stream.

“This affects almost everybody,” said Amy Baker, principal of Amy Baker Architect and a longtime CSI member who has served on her local CSI chapter board for the last four years. “Architects, engineers, specifiers, contractors, manufacturers, building owners — the entire industry relies on these numbering systems every single day.”

From Industry Standard to Subscription Model

According to Baker, the controversy began roughly three months ago when CSI members discovered new licensing language posted quietly within CSI’s website.

“There wasn’t actually an announcement,” Baker said. “It was information found on the website and posted in the community forum by a member."

Historically, firms obtained a license to use MasterFormat simply by purchasing a printed copy of the standards or related study materials. Many professionals say enforcement was virtually nonexistent, and the system functioned as a practical industry standard for more than 60 years.

But critics say the new model dramatically changes that relationship.

Under the revised structure, continued use of MasterFormat and related standards may require annual subscriptions to CSI’s new software platform, CSI Dynamic Standards (CDS), rather than traditional one-time purchases.

“It became an annual subscription-based software program that we all were told we would become subscribers to in order to gain access to the license to use MasterFormat and other standards,” Baker said.

Industry professionals argue the implications are enormous because MasterFormat is not optional for many sectors.

“The federal government mandates the use of MasterFormat for government projects,” Baker explained. “Institutions and universities mandate it for their internal standards. It’s baked into our contracts.”

That dependence has fueled accusations that CSI is attempting to monetize what has effectively become a captive market.

Licensing Fees Spark Outrage

Particularly controversial is the reported pricing structure tied to company revenue.

According to Baker, firms must disclose annual revenue through an online calculator that determines licensing costs.

“If your firm grosses $2 million or less, it’s roughly $699 a year,” she said. “Once you move into larger firms, it jumps into the thousands, and for very large firms… you have to call The Construction Standard directly for pricing.”

For larger architecture and engineering firms, critics estimate annual fees could reach tens of thousands of dollars.

“The difference between buying a $150 book every four or five years versus paying potentially tens of thousands annually is massive,” Baker said. “That could equal a full-time employee’s salary that firms never budgeted for.”

Smaller independent specifiers and semi-retired architects may also be disproportionately affected.

“Even $700 a year can be a real burden if you’re only practicing part-time,” she added.

Many professionals have questioned why company revenue is tied to licensing costs at all.

“The only entities whose business it is to know my revenue are the IRS and the state,” Baker said. “The rationale behind this hasn’t been explained, which makes it feel like a gross money grab.”

Legal Questions and Copyright Challenges

The controversy has intensified because CSI’s licensing rollout coincides with ongoing litigation involving copyright claims over MasterFormat numbering systems.

CSI is currently involved in lawsuits against software companies in both the United States and Canada over alleged copyright infringement tied to the use of MasterFormat classifications. At the core of the dispute is whether numbering systems and taxonomies can be copyrighted under U.S. law.

The industry is currently awaiting the final summary judgement that will inform them on CSI’s copyright status.

Questions About Private Investors and Ownership

Beyond licensing concerns, members are increasingly focused on governance, ownership structures and financial transparency.

In 2020, CSI created a subsidiary known as Construction Information Network (CIN). According to Baker, CSI originally owned CIN entirely. But in 2025, that ownership structure changed.

“CSI is now the minority owner,” Baker said. “A slight majority is now owned by private investors.”

The identity and influence of those investors have become a major flashpoint.

Members have specifically raised questions about a related entity called “The Construction Standard,” which now acts as the exclusive licensor for CSI standards.

According to Baker, industry professionals have been unable to obtain clear answers regarding:

• Who controls licensing decisions.
• How revenues are distributed.
• Whether CSI can override licensing changes.
• What authority private investors now hold.

“Where’s the money going? Nobody knows,” Baker said.

Baker also pointed to concerns surrounding the shift towards subscription based models in the industry, citing AIA Contract Documents as a recent example.

“The industry didn’t like that either,” she said. “Now we’re seeing a similar shift happen with MasterFormat.”

Allegations of Member Censorship Deepen Transparency Concerns

Concerns over licensing and governance have now expanded into accusations that CSI leadership is actively suppressing member criticism.

According to Baker, multiple posts she attempted to publish in CSI’s members-only community forum were allegedly blocked by moderators before ever appearing publicly.

“I’ve had at least five posts that never made it to the community forum because they were censored,” Baker said.

Baker said she only discovered the moderation after noticing her posts never appeared publicly. Afterward, she reposted several of the blocked comments on LinkedIn, where they quickly gained traction among architects, specifiers and other industry professionals.

“It was only after I pushed them to explain what rule I supposedly violated that CSI formally followed their own process to tell me why I was censored,” she said. “In my opinion, I did not break the forum rules.”

The censorship allegations have become a flashpoint among frustrated members who already question the organization’s transparency surrounding licensing agreements, governance decisions and investor relationships.

What began as forum disputes has since evolved into a broader grassroots backlash movement across the AEC industry.

The controversy became so widely discussed that another industry member launched a satirical merchandise campaign featuring the slogan “Free Amy Baker” on T-shirts and coffee mugs.

Surprisingly, the campaign spread nationally.

“I’ve received dozens of photos and selfies from people all over the country wearing the shirts and using the mugs,” Baker said. “It’s kind of amazing that it took off.”

According to Baker, proceeds from the merchandise are being donated to Lawrence Technological University, which recently launched a specification writing certificate program.

For many critics, the censorship allegations represent more than a disagreement over moderation policies. They see it as evidence of a widening disconnect between CSI leadership and the volunteer-driven professional community that helped build and maintain the standards for decades.

The optics, some members argue, have only intensified perceptions that legitimate concerns are being managed through controlled messaging rather than open industry dialogue.

A Growing Revolt Inside CSI

The backlash is no longer limited to online discussions.

According to Baker, CSI chapters are actively discussing dissolving memberships, and some members have already left the organization entirely.

“There’s been a huge backlash,” she said. “People have already dropped their membership. Chapters are talking about leaving.”

Critics also argue CSI leadership has failed to communicate openly with members.

A recent CSI town hall intended to address concerns instead deepened frustrations, according to attendees.

“It felt more like a marketing pitch than an actual discussion,” Baker said. “People were asking serious governance questions, and we got half answers.”

She added that many members now question whether CSI leadership is prioritizing software monetization over the nonprofit organization’s original mission of collaborative industry standards development.

“There’s a growing feeling that the rug was pulled out from under all of us,” Baker said.

Industry-wide Consequences

The implications could stretch far beyond CSI membership itself.

Manufacturers, contractors and software developers are reportedly following the situation closely, though many remain reluctant to speak publicly.

“Many manufacturers are offering their support privately, but they are often not permitted by their companies to make public statements,” Baker said.

Some professionals have also raised antitrust concerns given the widespread mandatory use of MasterFormat on public projects.

“The argument is that they’re charging rent on a captive market,” Baker explained. “That’s where the monopoly concerns come from.”

At the same time, few realistic alternatives currently exist.

The industry’s dependence on MasterFormat is so deeply entrenched that replacing it could take years, particularly for government and institutional work.

“It’s a very big ship to turn,” Baker said.

What Happens Next?

For now, many industry professionals say they are waiting for greater transparency, legal rulings and possible revisions to the licensing structure.

Baker believes CSI could still rebuild trust — but only if leadership reverses course.

“If this software is truly valuable, then people should want to subscribe to it voluntarily,” she said. “ Don’t force the industry to access a license behind software nobody asked for.”

Until then, the controversy continues to escalate, raising difficult questions about ownership, governance and who ultimately controls the standards underpinning the modern construction industry.

Update 6/1/2026: A response from CSI:

To the Editors:

While Lindsay Lewis’s May 2026 article on CSI’s new licensing structure raises some legitimate questions about industry communication, it contains a number of key errors and omissions and was published without any contact with CSI’s leadership.  Further, it relies almost entirely on a single source who is currently embroiled in an active dispute against CSI and presents her advocacy as objective industry analysis. We have no record of outreach from Building Enclosure. Your readers are owed facts and more than one side of this story.

The article’s central framing, that “private investors” now hold influence over essential industry infrastructure, is highly misleading. This is editorial assertion, not a reported finding.

CIN (Construction Information Network, LLC) is a subsidiary that CSI’s own member-elected Board created in 2020 to modernize delivery of its classification standards. CSI owns 100 percent of MasterFormat, UniFormat, and OmniClass. Importantly, CSI maintains nearly 50 percent ownership of CIN itself — with minority rights that significantly exceed the norm, including a provision that no sale or fundamental change to the licensing structure can be forced without CSI’s authorization. CIN’s software development partner maintains the delivery platform; it has no authority over standards content or licensing terms.

On pricing, the article omits two facts that change the comparison entirely. CSI member pricing starts at $399 annually, not $699. More importantly, the new license covers every user in a firm, whereas the prior model required each individual to purchase a separate copy. The FAQ at theconstructionstandard.com states this explicitly. The “$150 book every four or five years” comparison also significantly understates the historical per-copy price, and MasterFormat editions were published in 2016, 2018, and 2020, not every four or five years. A free basic lookup remains available to any registered user.

On revenue-based pricing: no firm is asked to submit financial documentation. The pricing calculator uses a self-reported revenue range. The rationale is published in CIN's FAQ. Revenue-tiered licensing is standard practice for enterprise software across industries. The article does not reflect this.

CSI acknowledges that the February 2026 launch of the Dynamic Standards included incomplete pricing information and caused some confusion in the specification's community. That is on us. Current information is at csiresources.org and theconstructionstandard.com. We welcome questions from reporters who seek our perspective before going to press.

 

Respectfully,

Mark Dorsey

CEO

Construction Specifications Institute