Clear Cooperation Policy

Clear Cooperation Policy
Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Keep Calling Out Restraints of Trade

Next month, I’ll be speaking at the LGBTQ+ Real Estate Alliance Housing Policy Conference, serving on a panel about NAR’s Clear Cooperation Policy—which, in case you’re new here, I’ve opposed since before it was even a NAR thing.

In fact, Bright MLS implemented this policy a full month before NAR did in 2019. And as soon as I saw it, I fired off a spirited (but polite!) email to the Bright MLS board of directors. Here’s a key takeaway from that email:

“More consumer choice is a good thing. It should not be for the Bright MLS board to determine what advertising methods a brokerage or agent should use, as long as that method is legal.”

I stand by every word.

The Clear Cooperation Policy may be wrapped in language about fairness and transparency, but to me, it looks an awful lot like a conspiracy to restrain trade—one that imposes a group boycott against brokerages who use off-MLS marketing strategies. And while that may sound dramatic, I assure you, the antitrust lawyers reading this are nodding vigorously.

Advocates for the policy often claim it’s about fair housing. That sounds noble. But here’s the issue: there’s no actual data supporting the idea that fair housing violations occur more frequently in off-MLS transactions. None.
Not from NAR.
Not from any MLS.
Not from any advocacy group.
No one has even commissioned a study to ask the question. And frankly, I’m highly suspicious that such a study would back up the claim. If off-MLS sales were a hotbed of discrimination, you'd think someone would’ve pulled the fire alarm by now.

This isn’t about whether I personally like off-MLS deals (spoiler: I often don’t). It’s about defending a marketplace where different business models can compete, consumers can choose, and we don’t make MLS boards the final arbiters of what’s “acceptable” marketing. I work primarily with investors, and in doing so I sell tenant-occupied properties.  These properties can take me 6-12 months to sell.  If I let a property sit on the MLS for 12 months, it would devastate the properties value. 

Also, let’s be honest: the big brokerages win under this policy. Small brokers and solo agents? Not so much. Bright essentially handed large brokerages the ability to market internally to their vast networks while the “little guys” were told to sit quietly and stop disrupting the status quo.

I said it back then, and I’ll say it again now: this policy is a legal and ethical mess waiting to happen.  The policy caused nearly 6 years of lawsuits, fines, and chaos for our industry.  And I’ll be discussing exactly why during the panel—ideally with fewer curse words than I muttered while reading the first draft of the policy.

Until then, remember:
This blog isn’t official. But the frustration? Oh, that’s very real.

—Russell

My Thoughts Are My Own

Let’s just get this out of the way right now: these are my thoughts, not anyone else’s.

Yes, I’m a real estate broker.
Yes, I’m president-elect of my local REALTOR® association.
Yes, I sit on the NAR board of directors.
And no, this blog is not their newsletter.

This is my space—where I write candidly about real estate, real estate investing, NAR governance, and the occasional organizational “oopsie” (which may or may not rhyme with “Bar”...).

If you’re looking for safe, sanitized talking points with seven layers of approval, you might want to try a press release.
If you want sharp takes, real talk, and probably a few uncomfortable truths about the industry we love (and occasionally want to throw out the window), then welcome. You’re in the right place.

This blog isn’t about toeing the line.
It’s about drawing it—with a Sharpie.

So let’s get to it.
Unfiltered. Unofficial. Undeniably mine.

—Russell