The National Association of Realtors said in its latest quarterly update that it is expanding guidance for multiple listing services as federal regulators review how antitrust law applies to collaborations among competitors. NAR’s recent resources address listing displays, broker communications, office exclusives, and premarketing options. The update gives brokers new compliance material while lawsuits continue over Clear Cooperation, MLS participation, and past buyer-broker compensation practices.
Why federal antitrust guidance is under review
The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice opened a public inquiry on February 23 to determine whether businesses need updated guidance on collaborations among competitors. The agencies withdrew their 2000 collaboration guidelines in December 2024. Companies were directed to rely on antitrust statutes and case law while enforcement continued case by case.
The public-comment period closed May 21. NAR and the Council of Multiple Listing Services submitted comments arguing that shared MLS data broadens listing access and helps brokerages of different sizes compete.
The agencies have not endorsed NAR’s position or announced when guidance may be issued. Individual MLS rules would remain subject to antitrust review.
What NAR wants regulators to clarify
NAR wants clearer standards for shared data, association rules, and technology used by competing businesses. It argues that MLS cooperation can benefit competition while allowing brokers to make independent decisions. The inquiry also asks whether updated guidance is needed for information sharing, algorithmic pricing, and other technology-enabled collaborations.
Meanwhile, NAR has issued more specific guidance for the real estate industry. Resources published in May explain listing filters and broker communications, including when communication between brokers may trigger the Clear Cooperation Policy. Listing-distribution disputes can also affect where properties appear online, as recent Realtracs-Zillow feed negotiations demonstrated.
Additional office-exclusive guidance released in July emphasizes seller disclosure and local compliance requirements. Agents must explain the effects of each marketing option, while brokers must secure the required seller documentation.
The major cases still unresolved
ThePLS.com v. NAR remains active and directly challenges Clear Cooperation. The plaintiff alleges that the policy restricts competition from private-listing networks. NAR argues that broad distribution supports listing access and transparency.
Clear Cooperation remains in effect. For listings covered by local submission rules, it generally requires MLS filing within one business day after public marketing begins.
An office exclusive requires written seller consent to withhold the property from MLS distribution and public advertising. Under NAR’s current listing-options policy, the broker must still file the listing with the MLS and follow local documentation procedures.
Delayed-marketing listings provide another option where adopted locally. They remain available to MLS participants but may be temporarily withheld from IDX displays and syndication for a period set by the local MLS.
Separate buyer-commission litigation also remains open. A judge granted preliminary approval to NAR’s proposed Tuccori settlement in May, but final approval is pending. The settlement would require no additional practice changes beyond those already adopted.
Proceedings in the related Batton case have been stayed while the Tuccori process continues. Those cases concern historical buyer-agent commission practices rather than current listing-distribution rules.
What brokers should check now
The federal inquiry has not changed local compliance requirements. Brokerages should review their rules for office exclusives, delayed marketing, Coming Soon statuses, public advertising, and seller disclosures.
Agents should not promise that a listing can remain private once public marketing begins. Seller instructions must be documented, but listing advice and brokerage procedures still need to comply with current local MLS rules.