Whether it’s refining your business model, mastering new technologies, or discovering strategies to capitalize on the next market surge, Inman Connect New York will prepare you to take bold steps forward. The Next Chapter is about to begin. Be part of it. Join us and thousands of real estate leaders Jan. 22-24, 2025.
Opposition to the National Association of Realtors’ pocket listing rule has now trickled down to at least one local chapter in a luxury real estate community in Utah.
The Park City Board of Realtors, whose multiple listing service had 1,789 subscribers at the end of 2023, is no longer enforcing the Clear Cooperation Policy, according to an Oct. 3 email from the local association’s CEO to its member brokers.
The Clear Cooperation Policy, which went into effect in 2020, requires listing brokers to submit listings to the MLS within one business day after they’ve been marketed publicly. The rule has gotten increasing pushback from many in the industry due to the threat of antitrust litigation, scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Justice and fallout from NAR’s proposed settlement of multiple commissions-related lawsuits.
Jamie Johnson
In the Oct. 3 email, Jamie Johnson, CEO of the Park City Board of Realtors and MLS, told local brokers that the MLS and the PCBR board of directors had written a letter to NAR in August about the CCP.
“The letter was sent to NAR from the Board of Directors with concern about litigation pertaining to Clear Cooperation,” Johnson wrote.
“We informed NAR that until their Policy Committee met and decided on potential changes to the policy that we would not be adhering to the policy requirements.
“However, due to Core Standard requirements from NAR we told them we would wait until their policy committee had discussions before we would make any formal announcements to our membership at large.”
According to Johnson, PCBR is no longer requiring agents to comply with the CCP.
“At this time we are not enforcing the policy but honestly we have not had any fees for agents breaking this policy in the past either,” she wrote.
“If someone called in about an agent that they felt was in violation we just contacted the agent and asked them to get the listing in the MLS, and they always have.
“Our normal MLS policy still requires an agent with a listing agreement to put the listing in the MLS unless they have a signed right to withhold form from the seller.”
Inman reached out to Johnson for comment, who requested Inman not publish an article on PCBR’s decision.
“Any communication that I have with the national association is between me and the national association,” Johnson told Inman over the phone.
“I am asking that you drop this issue because it is not something that we would like to be reported about as we are doing our jobs here for our members, and we are working with our three-way agreement with the national association,” Johnson added.
Inman asked NAR whether it would be taking any action or imposing any discipline as a result of PCBR’s decision and whether other Realtor associations or MLSs had informed NAR they would not longer enforce the CCP.
“NAR is actively listening to the perspectives and feedback of industry participants regarding the Clear Cooperation Policy,” a NAR spokesperson told Inman in an emailed statement.
“NAR is open to this important ongoing dialogue with the ultimate goal of helping NAR members and consumers succeed.”
NAR’s MLS Technology and Emerging Issues Advisory Board will be meeting to discuss the CCP in “late October,” NAR added.
Thomas Wright
Thomas Wright, CEO and principal broker at Summit Sotheby’s International Realty in Park City, told Inman his brokerage was not involved in PCBR’s decision, but that he agreed the CCP needs to be changed or repealed because it goes against his firm’s desire to put consumers first.
“The National Association of Realtors has made self-interested decisions that ignore many consumer wishes and thereby put brokerages in the position of ‘having to follow the rules’ or be at odds with ‘board rules’ when fulfilling the wishes of our clients,” Wright told Inman via email.
“The ‘Clear Cooperation’ rule needs to be modified or eliminated. The requirement of this rule was typical of NAR who creates a ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy for the industry instead of empowering brokerages to provide to clients their individual needs and wishes.
“The rule empowered local boards’ apparent goal of ‘leveling the playing field’ for ineffective brokerages while ignoring consumer voices that did not want their property information published on thousands of websites, including the fragmented, inconsistent web of multiple listing services scattered across markets.”
Wright said it was NAR’s mandate that “all properties be on the board-controlled MLS systems” that was self-interested.
“The Park City Board’s decision to not enforce the rule is welcome and supported by our firm, but shines the light on a bigger issue in Park City, and the industry as a whole, namely that boards and associations over recent years have often been making policies based upon their own self interest and preservation, dictating the rules for the real estate industry, instead of allowing consumer choice in the open, free market,” Wright said.
“We hope that this step forward is a sign of changes to come with the Park City Board and the industry.”
Asked whether he was referring to other policies in addition to the CCP, Wright cited “archaic keybox policies to prevent competition from sales agents outside the local board.”
Regarding distribution of listings from the MLS elsewhere, Wright said PCBR’s MLS does allow listing brokers to opt-out of such distribution, “[b]ut brokerages are then restricted from advertising on places like their own website.”
Asked why a seller would want a listing to be publicly marketed online but not have the listing be on the MLS, he said, “One scenario I recall off the top of my head is a seller who didn’t want their listing on competing broker’s websites but did want their property on Sotheby’s International Realty channels. In others, they wanted to customize their exposure but were unable to because of board policies.”
Asked why a seller would want to limit their listing’s exposure in those ways instead of having the listing seen by as many buyers as possible, Wright said that, “in this particular case, the client believed there was a specific, narrow target market for prospective buyers that some channels targeted more effectively.”