After essentially putting off a decision on the Clear Cooperation Policy for several months despite significant pressure, the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) yesterday offered what appeared to be its final decision, toeing a narrow line by affirming the controversial MLS rule while creating a new category to allow “flexibility” for keeping listings off consumer-facing sites.
While releasing an extensive FAQ with detailed information on everything from disclosure requirements to how “days on market” would be defined, questions still remain about the specifics, including exactly what type of marketing would be allowed for so-called “exempt” listings, and who would be responsible for creating key disclosure forms that sellers will be asked to sign.
A source familiar with NAR’s interpretation of the policy tells RISMedia that MLSs will be asked to create their own forms for the “exempt” listing, relying on a guideline provided by NAR that includes an acknowledgement of “the MLS benefits (sellers) are waiving or delaying” among other things.
The source also confirmed that while portals like Zillow and Realtor.com® operate as brokers and “MLS Participants”—who are explicitly supposed to have access to the new “exempt” category—those “exempt” listings will not be displayed on the “broadly syndicated channel” of a portal.
But, at the same time, it is permissible for MLSs to create an option to have “exempt” listings posted to one platform and not another, according to the source, outside of the IDX feed. Theoretically, that could mean sellers would choose from a menu of places where they wanted their listing to appear (or not appear).
Another question that was not addressed in detail in the FAQ was exactly where agents can or can’t market these “exempt” listings outside the MLS. While explicitly saying that these listings can be marketed on the listing broker’s website, the initial NAR guidance only adds that the listing agent can market the property “in a manner consistent with the seller’s needs and interests,” including potentially other websites.
The NAR source tells RISMedia that while there is not “universal” flexibility, agents and brokers should generally be allowed to post listings on other websites and social media even while they are “exempt.”
Cautious positivity
Digesting the broad contours of the new policy—and the decision to stand behind Clear Cooperation—real estate industry leaders mostly offered positive assessments of NAR’s decision, though some also described it is relatively insubstantial as many MLSs already offer the kinds of options detailed in the “exempt” category.
“Today is a big win as (Clear Cooperation) remains intact,” says Art Carter, CEO of the California Regional MLS (CRMLS), the nation’s largest MLS. “(Clear Cooperation) is the best tool we have to ensure transparency and cooperation among brokerages and is in the best interest of brokers, agents and consumers—so I’m happy and relieved to see that NAR has decided to keep it in place.”
Carter has previously advocated for the underlying principle of “mandatory submission” as essential to fairness and efficiency in real estate markets, while also saying Clear Cooperation has room for improvement.
Leo Pareja, CEO of eXp Realty and a strong supporter of Clear Cooperation, tells RISMedia that “preservation of cooperation is a win for consumers.”
“I truly believe that the highest value a seller can receive comes from exposing their property to as many buyers as possible,” he says. “While there are always exceptions—and sellers have always had the right to choose—I do believe that if a seller prefers not to have their property advertised, they should absolutely have that option.
“My biggest concern is the practice of steering sellers into believing that limited exposure is the best option, even when empirical data suggests otherwise,” Pareja adds.
Brian Donnellan, CEO of Bright MLS, also highlighted options for sellers who want limited exposure as an exception—albeit an important one—to rule of marketing properties widely.
“Today’s announcement from NAR affirms what innovative MLSs like Bright know—no two homesellers are the same, and brokers and agents need flexibility to best serve their clients,” he says. “We already have the options NAR is now suggesting —in fact, we have allowed subscribers for nearly two decades to market properties as their clients direct, such as the option to choose ‘Internet No’ in our system, and we removed the time limit on Coming Soon listings last summer.”
On the other side, Robert Reffkin, CEO of Compass and one of the harshest critics of Clear Cooperation, characterized the new option as not going far enough—while still acknowledging some positives.
“MLSs shouldn’t restrict how homeowners market their homes at all, but by providing them with a longer period of unrestricted public marketing, like 30 days, MLSs reduce their legal risk and homeowners gain more choice that they need and deserve,” he said.
Jason Haber, co-founder of the American Real Estate Association—essentially a rival to NAR, which earlier this month outlined how it would replace Clear Cooperation with a new policy—says that the new rule is a “step in the right direction.”
“This new ‘exempt’ designation mirrors some of the principles we laid out in our Clear Collaboration proposal. We support change even if it’s incremental, and will continue to work with MLSs and agents across the country to make sure it doesn’t become Clear Confusion,” Haber says.
Carter says CRMLS is still going to be working through the details and how to implement the new policy, which must be adopted by Sept. 30, 2025.
“CRMLS will take the time needed to explore our options to best accommodate (the new policy),” he says. “Considering the focus on IDX, we may consider tactics akin to a checkbox in the MLS for ‘IDX/syndication: Yes/No’ rather than a new status. However, it’s still too early to say for sure what the most sensible course of action will be, but I look forward to ironing out how we can make the new policy work best for our users.”
Michael Catarevas contributed to this reporting.
