As I have highlighted in previous articles, the real problem with this rule is that it imposes a one-size-fits-all solution on a very diverse set of circumstances. Agents with every intention of putting a listing in the MLS may find themselves constrained by the policy’s rigid timeline and prohibitions, limiting their ability to execute marketing strategies tailored to the needs of their clients.
A Misrepresentation of Intent
One of the most frustrating aspects of the debate around the Clear Cooperation Policy is the disingenuous portrayal of the issue by some proponents of the rule. They often frame the opposition as a desire to keep listings out of the MLS entirely, suggesting that agents pushing back against the rule are simply looking for ways to avoid sharing information. In reality, many agents, including myself, are primarily concerned with the restrictions the rule places on how and when we can promote a property before it hits the MLS.
For example, an agent might want to place a “coming soon” sign in a seller’s yard as soon as the listing agreement is signed, even if the seller isn’t ready to show the property for a few weeks. Or a seller may want to share on social media that their home will be available once a few repairs are completed. The Clear Cooperation Policy effectively bans such practices, even if the intent is to eventually list the property on the MLS. These restrictions can prevent agents from building pre-market buzz, which often results in better outcomes for sellers.
Where the Industry Stands
Currently, the industry is deeply divided over the Clear Cooperation Policy. Some argue that the rule ensures fairness and transparency, preventing large brokerages from “hoarding” listings and selectively sharing them only within their own networks. However, opponents see it as a top-down mandate that ignores the nuanced needs of clients and agents on the ground. This tension is playing out in various forums, with major industry players like Compass and Redfin publicly taking opposing stances.
Additionally, the policy has caught the attention of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other regulatory bodies, adding a legal layer to what is already a complex situation. The DOJ has reopened its investigation into NAR’s policies, and many are watching closely to see whether the Clear Cooperation Policy might be revised or struck down as part of the broader antitrust concerns surrounding the real estate industry.
What’s Next for the Rule?
In my view, NAR is facing mounting pressure to adapt. While I don’t believe the Clear Cooperation Policy will survive in its current form, NAR has shown a stubborn resistance to change before. However, if they are smart, they will eventually recognize that the rule’s rigidness does more harm than good and will cave to the increasing calls for its removal. The reality is that as the market continues to evolve, the industry needs to be flexible enough to serve the interests of consumers and agents alike — and this policy is increasingly looking like an obstacle rather than a solution.
One potential outcome is that NAR will amend the rule to allow for more flexibility in pre-MLS marketing, which would still ensure the policy’s goals of transparency while respecting agents’ ability to promote listings in a way that benefits their clients. But whether this kind of change will be enough to quell the growing discontent remains to be seen.
The Bottom Line
The real estate industry thrives on cooperation, but cooperation shouldn’t come at the expense of consumer choice or the ability of agents to act in their clients’ best interests. Rather than a rigid mandate, we need a policy that adapts to the realities of the modern market. Until then, I’ll continue to advocate for changes that prioritize clients’ needs over bureaucratic rules.
Comments are closed.
