The real estate industry is facing a defining moment as it debates policies that could reshape how homes are marketed and sold across the U.S. At the center of this shift is the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) Clear Cooperation Policy — a rule that could impact transparency, competition, and consumer choice in major ways.
What Is the Clear Cooperation Policy?
Launched in 2020, the Clear Cooperation Policy requires agents to submit listings to the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) within one business day of publicly marketing a property. This rule was designed to crack down on “off-market” or “pocket listings” — homes marketed privately to limited buyers without being listed publicly.
By ensuring listings are broadly shared, the policy aims to give all buyers equal access and help sellers get the best possible price by reaching more potential buyers.
Why the Real Estate Industry Is Split
The policy has triggered strong opinions on both sides. Supporters believe Clear Cooperation promotes fairness, protects equal housing opportunity, and drives better results for sellers through open competition.
Others argue that sellers should control how their homes are marketed. In luxury markets, for example, some sellers prefer to remain off the public radar. High-net-worth individuals often want to test pricing quietly or keep details private. Critics claim that requiring MLS listings can limit flexibility and potentially violate antitrust principles.
Who Gains or Loses From the Rule?
A lot depends on how a company operates. Brokerages and platforms that rely on the MLS — where listing data is shared openly — tend to support the rule. Firms that emphasize exclusivity or target niche, high-end markets often oppose it.
Some real estate agents say the policy ensures consistency and transparency, which helps buyers and sellers alike. Others believe it restricts options and interferes with custom marketing strategies that might better serve specific clients.
What About Pocket Listings?
Pocket listings are most common in luxury or low-inventory markets. Celebrities, public figures, or wealthy individuals often prefer to sell their homes discreetly. These sellers may want to avoid public price drops or long listing times that can hurt perception.
While estimates vary, pocket listings make up a small percentage of total sales — typically under 5%. In periods of low housing inventory, that number can rise, as agents look to use exclusive listings as a competitive edge.
The Clear Cooperation Policy doesn’t ban pocket listings entirely. It allows for some exceptions — such as marketing a property only within one brokerage — but these loopholes are limited and closely monitored.
Do Pocket Listings Help or Hurt Sellers?
This is a debated issue. In some cases, sellers may benefit from finding the right buyer quickly through private networks, especially in hot markets. But without broad exposure, they may miss out on competing offers or higher bids.
Studies show mixed outcomes: some indicate pocket listings can sell for slightly less than public listings, while others claim that pre-marketing strategies can drive up final sale prices. The takeaway? The impact likely depends on the market, timing, and strategy.
Another issue: when one agent represents both buyer and seller in a private deal, it can reduce negotiation leverage and transparency on commission terms.
Fair Housing and Equity Concerns
Fair housing advocates support the policy because pocket listings can unintentionally reinforce exclusion. If homes are marketed only within private circles, it can limit access for buyers from underrepresented communities.
By keeping listings within exclusive groups, pocket listings may deepen segregation or discrimination — even if unintentionally. Advocates argue that making listings public helps ensure all buyers, regardless of background, can participate fairly.
Legal Pressure and What’s Next
Over the years, the Clear Cooperation Policy has been the subject of multiple legal challenges. Though some lawsuits have been dismissed, the policy remains under intense scrutiny, especially as related to competition and consumer rights.
Now, NAR is reviewing whether to keep, change, or repeal the rule entirely. The outcome could reshape how properties are marketed in every major city and small town across the country.
Conclusion
The debate over Clear Cooperation reflects a larger struggle between transparency and flexibility in real estate. As the industry modernizes and consolidates, policies like this will define who has access to what — and at what cost. Whether the policy stays, evolves, or disappears, the decision will have a lasting impact on how homes are bought and sold in America.