Today, the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) announced significant changes to its controversial Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP). After months of debate and scrutiny—from brokers, MLS leaders, agents, and legal experts—NAR introduced the new “Multiple Listing Options for Sellers” policy, which aims to address concerns around consumer choice and market fairness.
I’ve written extensively on why the original CCP faced such strong opposition, notably in my recent article highlighting attorney Michael Ketchmark’s explicit warning to NAR brokers: repeal CCP or face legal action. Ketchmark, lead counsel in the landmark Sitzer lawsuit, clearly indicated that maintaining the CCP could trigger antitrust lawsuits against individual brokers who supported it.
The new policy announced today appears to be NAR’s attempt to address these legal pressures while preserving some of the original intentions behind CCP.
Under the updated policy:
- Sellers can now opt for a “delayed marketing exempt listing,” allowing the listing agent to temporarily withhold public marketing through IDX feeds or third-party syndications.
- During this delayed period, properties remain accessible within the MLS, enabling agents from other brokerages to share these listings privately with clients.
- Each local MLS will determine its own delayed marketing timeframe, catering to regional market needs.
- Sellers choosing delayed marketing must sign a disclosure confirming their informed consent to delay broader public exposure.
Notably, NAR also clarified that one-on-one broker communications won’t trigger CCP’s requirements, but multi-broker communications remain classified as public marketing.
While the new policy does introduce more flexibility, from my perspective, it may still miss the mark. In my recent article, I proposed a more balanced solution: creating an “MLS Exclusive” category. This would mandate inclusion of listings within the MLS to ensure broad exposure among professionals, but without public syndication to Zillow, Realtor.com, and countless other public sites. This approach effectively balances privacy needs with fair competition—avoiding potential antitrust pitfalls.
The new NAR policy seems like a half-step toward that goal. It introduces valuable flexibility but still leaves questions about privacy and antitrust vulnerability unanswered. While delayed marketing might address some concerns, it stops short of fully embracing a robust, MLS-exclusive alternative.
As this policy rolls out nationwide—with implementation required by September 30, 2025—it’ll be critical for MLSs, brokers, and agents here in St. Louis and across Missouri to carefully evaluate the implications. The legal landscape remains sensitive, and industry professionals would be wise to consider whether this new policy fully addresses potential legal challenges or merely delays them.
