Bigger. Better. Bolder. Inman Connect is heading to San Diego. Join thousands of real estate pros, connect with the power of the Inman Community, and gain insights from hundreds of leading minds shaping the industry. If you’re ready to grow your business and invest in yourself, this is where you need to be. Go BIG in San Diego!
The debate around the Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP) has reached new levels of intensity, and as I’ve listened to both sides, something important has crystallized for me. There are two camps in this fight:
- The pro-CCP camp believes this policy ensures transparency and fairness by requiring that all listings be made available to all Realtors through the MLS.
- The anti-CCP camp argues that giving a real estate office an exclusive listing — keeping it off the MLS entirely — is actually better for the homeowner.
Let me be clear: I am not anti-MLS. Any broker who believes an exclusive listing with just their brokerage is better for the homeowner is not truthful. Any brokerage that promotes such a falsehood will undoubtedly eventually find itself in litigation with a homeseller who will say that they were duped and lied to so the broker could make more money on their listing.
TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY FOR MARCH
I believe if a homeowner wants to sell for the highest possible price, the property should be placed on the MLS every single time. Our MLS system in the United States is the envy of the world. As professionals, we should always encourage homesellers to hire a Realtor and get on the MLS. Period.
Common sense and decades of experience tell us that exposure matters if you want top dollar for a property. Is it better to have one potential buyer or 10? When listing inventory is broadly shared, bidding wars are possible. Demand increases. Price follows. To claim that limiting a listing to just one brokerage is better for most homeowners is misleading, to say the least.
That’s not why I oppose the CCP. I oppose it because of one fundamental issue: It takes away the homeowner’s choice.
Forcing a listing onto the MLS is an antitrust problem
The CCP requires that if a homeowner hires a real estate professional and publicly markets their property (even a simple social media post), that listing must be entered into the MLS within one business day. That means all other Realtor members can access and show the property. The homeowner cannot choose to keep the listing within the office or limit exposure without the listing agent being fined.
Now ask yourself this: Is forcing a seller to make their property available to every other member of a trade organization as a condition of hiring one of its members legal?
To answer this question, we need look no further than the Sherman Act. Any individual can read it and understand how an attorney could argue that the CCP creates an antitrust violation:
- Restraint of trade: Antitrust laws, like the Sherman Act, prohibit agreements that unreasonably restrain trade. The argument is that CCP, by requiring MLS listing within 24 hours of public marketing, effectively prevents a homeowner from choosing a truly exclusive arrangement where only one agent markets and shows the property. This restricts the homeowner’s choice in how they want to sell their property, which could be seen as a restraint on how real estate services are traded.
- Forcing a service: CCP forces homeowners to utilize the services of all agents who subscribe to the MLS, even if they only desire the services of a single agent. This could be interpreted as an anticompetitive practice if it unduly limits the options available to consumers (homeowners) and potentially benefits the collective of Realtors at the expense of individual homeowner preferences.
- The ‘cartel behavior’ argument: As highlighted by Michael Ketchmark in our recent class-action lawsuit, the comparison to a “cartel” mentality underscores the concern that the policy might prioritize the interests of Realtor Associations (and their members) over the individual choices of consumers. Antitrust laws are designed to prevent such scenarios where collective actions stifle competition and harm consumers
By design, CCP restricts a homeowner’s right to choose how their home is marketed and mandates cooperation with a private membership group — the National Association of Realtors (NAR) — without offering an opt-out. This doesn’t just feel wrong. It feels ripe for antitrust litigation. And trust me — those legal sharks are most definitely circling.
NAR’s new IDX policy proves the contradiction
In what appears to be a defensive move, NAR just introduced a new “Delayed Marketing Exempt Listing” policy under the banner of “Multiple Listing Options for Sellers.” One feature? Sellers can now choose to delay their home from being displayed on IDX feeds like Zillow, Realtor.com, and Homes.com — even though the home is already in the MLS.
Why did NAR do this?
To suggest they’re giving homeowners more options and flexibility.
But here’s the massive contradiction: If it’s OK for a seller to choose whether or not their home appears on public websites, why isn’t it OK for them to choose whether or not it goes into the MLS at all?
And, if NAR claims that removing CCP would reduce buyer access and exposure, how do they explain how removing a listing from IDX — the very sites where most buyers search — isn’t a reduction in access?
You can’t have it both ways. Either seller choice matters or it doesn’t. Either exposure matters, or it doesn’t. If taking a home off IDX limits buyer access and reduces exposure (which it absolutely does), then NAR’s own arguments for keeping CCP fall apart.
A strategy designed to feed the machine
Let’s not kid ourselves — CCP wasn’t created to help homeowners. It was designed to prop up the MLS system and protect NAR’s membership pipeline. Forcing listings into the MLS feeds weaker agents, props up dues-paying participation and keeps the NAR machinery running.
Now, with this IDX policy, NAR may have inadvertently built the argument for its own undoing. You can’t argue that more exposure benefits the seller and gives them the right to reduce exposure through IDX, while still denying them the right to opt out of the MLS altogether. That contradiction is glaring, and I can promise you, it will show up in a courtroom.
What needs to happen
This isn’t about scrapping the MLS. Again, I am pro-MLS. I believe most sellers will choose to list on the MLS once they understand the benefits. But the CCP must be revised so that homeowners are not forced into participation. Give them the right to opt out without penalties or limitations.
If NAR truly wants to give sellers more choice — as it claims with this new IDX policy — then let’s give them real choice. Let’s trust consumers to decide what’s right for their situation instead of designing policies that limit flexibility under the guise of fairness.
Because right now, CCP isn’t working for the consumer. It’s protecting the Realtor system. And systems that protect themselves at the expense of choice always collapse — eventually, with the help of a class action lawsuit.
Darryl Davis is the CEO of Darryl Davis Seminars. Connect with him on Facebook or YouTube.
