Clear Cooperation Policy Update: New Flexibility for Sellers

Background: The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) has announced a significant update to its Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP) that could impact how we market listings. NAR’s CCP (in effect since 2020) requires that any property being publicly marketed must be listed in the MLS within one business day. This rule was created to ensure all agents and buyers have equal access to available listings and to discourage “pocket listings” kept off the MLS. However, after five years of CCP, NAR spent months consulting with brokers, MLS leaders, fair housing experts, and others to address concerns that CCP might be too restrictive for some sellers. On March 25, 2025, NAR introduced a new policy called “Multiple Listing Options for Sellers,” which adds flexibility for home sellers while keeping CCP in place. This new option is now available in NAR’s model MLS rules, and local REALTOR® associations have until September 30, 2025 to decide if and how to implement it. We want to explain what this change entails, why it was made, and the pros and cons for our local market, so that all members can make an informed evaluation. Importantly, our association will be holding a Broker Brunch on August 15, 2025 at 10:00 AM to gather broker input on this issue, all brokers are encouraged to attend and share their feedback.

Why Did NAR Change the Policy? NAR leaders describe the new policy as a way to offer “informed consumer choice” in how sellers market their homes. The change comes after ongoing industry debate and even legal challenges to the CCP. Shortly after CCP took effect, two private listing networks filed lawsuits alleging CCP was too restrictive. Critics argued CCP disadvantaged certain sellers, for example, those who might not want their listing’s full marketing history public or who desire more privacy. On the other hand, many in the industry supported CCP for promoting fairness and broad exposure of listings. NAR performed a national risk assessment during its deliberations. One finding was that not allowing any seller option to delay public advertising could expose MLSs to legal liability, presumably by limiting consumer choice. In NAR’s words, they sought a solution that “mitigat[es] and avoid[s] potential legal risks” while reflecting the “best and balanced interests” of the industry. In short, the new policy aims to give sellers a bit more control over their marketing timeline without abandoning the cooperation and transparency that MLSs provide.

What Is the New “Delayed Marketing” Option? The Multiple Listing Options for Sellers policy introduces a category of MLS listing called a “delayed marketing exempt listing.” This allows a seller (with their broker’s agreement) to delay the public marketing of their property via Internet Data Exchange (IDX feeds to broker/public websites) and syndication (to portals like Zillow, Realtor.com, etc.) for a specified period. During the delay period, the listing must still be filed with the MLS and is visible to all MLS participants (all other REALTORS® in our MLS) so that those agents can still see the property and share it directly with their buyer clients. In other words, the home is listed as Active in the MLS for agents to show, but it will not appear on public sites like IDX feeds or aggregator websites until the delay period ends. The length of the delay is not set by NAR, each MLS has full discretion to set the allowed delay period (or whether to allow any delay at all) based on local needs. An MLS could choose a short window (for example, 3 days or 10 days of delayed syndication), a longer period, or even set “0 days” and effectively not implement any delayed marketing option. This local flexibility is deliberate: NAR encouraged every MLS to consult with its brokers and stakeholders to determine what works best in that market.

Several important rules apply to any delayed marketing listing to protect consumers and maintain fairness:

• Signed Seller Disclosure: The listing agent must obtain a signed certification/disclosure from the seller before using the delayed marketing option. The seller must acknowledge in writing that they understand they are waiving the benefits of full, immediate exposure of their listing on public sites. This disclosure ensures the seller is informed that holding the listing off consumer websites could lead to fewer buyers seeing it initially, and thus the property might attract less interest or lower offers than if it were broadly advertised from day one. The form essentially documents the seller’s informed consent to this limited marketing approach. (For comparison, a similar disclosure has long been required for an “office exclusive” listing, where a seller opts to keep the listing completely off the MLS/public market, affirming the seller knows they’re foregoing MLS exposure.)
• MLS Visibility and Cooperation: Even while public advertising is delayed, the listing must be submitted to the MLS and shared with all MLS participants (typically marked in a special status). This means all REALTORS® in our MLS will know about the listing and can show it to their buyers during the delay period. The listing broker can also continue to market the property one-to-one, for example, communicating directly with brokers or clients, without violating CCP. However, multi-brokerage public promotions are not allowed during the delay (since that would be “public marketing” triggering CCP). Notably, NAR clarified that a one-to-one communication (e.g., an individual call or email from the listing broker to another broker about the listing) does not count as public marketing under CCP, but any broader announcement (flyers, emails to multiple outside brokers, social media posts, etc.) would count and thus is not allowed unless the listing is on the MLS as required.
• IDX/Syndication Delay Only: The delayed marketing option only delays Internet and third-party portal exposure, not exposure within the MLS. During the delay, the MLS itself and its participants are simply “delayed from displaying the listing through an IDX feed and syndicating… to other entities”. This is distinct from the existing “Coming Soon” status many MLSs have (which typically withholds showings for a time), in a delayed marketing listing, the property can be shown to buyers and even go under contract immediately, just without online advertising. It’s also distinct from an Office Exclusive, where the listing isn’t available to other MLS participants at all. In fact, the new delayed marketing category was created to offer an alternative to office exclusives: a seller who has privacy or timing concerns can keep their listing off public sites initially while still cooperating with all MLS brokers,  providing more transparency than a true off-MLS pocket listing.
• Implementation Deadline: The policy officially took effect March 25, 2025, but NAR gave MLSs until September 30, 2025 to make any necessary system changes and decide on their local approach. This grace period is to allow time for MLS software updates (to support a new listing status or flag) and for local associations to gather input on what “delay period” (if any) makes sense locally. Local Choice: Crucially, NAR’s handbook explicitly notes that each MLS has the freedom to decide not only the length of any delay, but even whether to implement the delayed marketing option at all. It is optional, NAR is not forcing every MLS to adopt a delay. If an MLS believes this feature doesn’t suit its market or poses risks, it could choose a 0-day delay (meaning no change to current practice).

Why Offer a Delayed Marketing Option? From NAR’s perspective, this change is about balancing broker cooperation with sellers’ needs for flexibility. Some key reasons in favor of allowing delayed syndication include:

• Seller Autonomy and Privacy: A small subset of sellers may have legitimate reasons to limit immediate public exposure of their home. Common examples are sellers concerned about privacy (e.g., public figures or privacy in sensitive situations like divorces), previously such sellers often went with office exclusives to keep the listing off the MLS entirely. The delayed marketing option gives these clients another choice: their home can be quietly marketed within the professional network of MLS agents for a short period without splashing the info all over public sites on day one, if that suits their needs. This could be seen as a win for consumer choice and client service. NAR’s new policy was explicitly **“designed to give consumers greater choice and flexibility in marketing their homes”】.
• Legal Risk Mitigation: As noted, NAR’s leadership was partly motivated by legal considerations. By introducing this flexibility, NAR aims to preempt legal challenges that claimed MLS rules were too restrictive or anti-competitive. NAR’s President Kevin Sears stated that they are continually updating policies to best serve members and consumers “while also mitigating and avoiding potential legal risks”. In essence, offering an option for delayed syndication could help protect our association and MLS from liability by showing we allow informed consumer choice (versus forcing a one-size-fits-all approach). If a seller ever were to claim they were harmed by not having a choice, we can point to this option.
• Maintaining Fair Housing & Cooperation: Importantly, the new option preserves cooperation among REALTORS®. Unlike true off-MLS deals, a delayed-marketing listing is still in the MLS for all agents to see. Buyers working with any REALTOR® will still learn about the property early on, which helps uphold fair housing and broad access for qualified buyers. NAR explicitly balanced this policy to support fair housing goals by ensuring listings aren’t completely hidden from segments of buyers,  all buyers with agent representation get equal access through the MLS. In theory, this could reduce the use of totally off-market “private networks” and keep more inventory on the MLS, which benefits cooperation.
• Meeting Diverse Seller Needs: The real estate market is not one-size-fits-all. NAR gathered input from large and small brokerages, technology and policy experts, and multicultural and fair housing groups in crafting this policy. The result is meant to address scenarios where CCP’s strict timeline might not align with a seller’s best interest. For example, a seller might want to do some limited marketing or staging before exposing the home to the full online audience, or might want to gauge pricing with a controlled rollout. By allowing a short delay in online exposure, brokers can tailor their marketing plan to the client’s timeline (while still sharing the listing within the MLS). Some MLS executives have praised this addition as bringing much-needed “flexibility” to serve clients better.
• Continued Strong MLS Value: Another argument for the delayed syndication option is that it could strengthen the relevancy of the MLS. In recent years, some agents and startups sought to work outside the MLS to satisfy clients wanting privacy or pre-marketing. Now, instead of going outside the MLS system (with an office exclusive or a separate private network), those listings can remain inside our MLS (counting toward inventory and market data, and available to Realtor members), just withheld from public sites temporarily. This reinforces the MLS’s central role, because even unique seller needs can be handled within our rules. It also demonstrates to sellers that REALTORS® are listening and adapting to give them more options, which ultimately bolsters our value proposition.

Concerns and Potential Drawbacks: While there are clear reasons to consider adopting this policy, it’s equally important to examine arguments against implementing the delayed marketing option in our local MLS. Here are some key concerns and points raised by those skeptical of the change:

• Reduced Exposure = Lower Seller Benefit: The most obvious concern is that a listing kept off Zillow, Realtor.com, and other public sites for any length of time is losing out on exposure to potential buyers. Broad exposure often helps drive buyer interest and high offers. By delaying that exposure, a seller could miss the “new listing buzz” on consumer platforms. Our association’s standard advice has always been that maximum marketing yields the best price. Indeed, the required seller disclosure for delayed listings highlights that the seller is waiving the “broad and immediate exposure” the MLS provides. There is an inherent risk the property could sell for less or take longer to sell due to the reduced visibility, and even though the seller consents, this outcome is not ideal for our market reputation. Especially in today’s slower market, many feel it’s counterproductive to hide a listing from any segment of buyers. With buyer demand softening, sellers usually want more advertising, not less. Therefore, some brokers may question whether any of their clients would truly benefit from this option right now.
• Impact on Unrepresented Buyers (Fair Access): One of the strongest criticisms of the delayed syndication concept is that it withholds information from consumers who are not working with an agent. During the delay period, a buyer who is browsing on Zillow or other public sites wouldn’t know the home is for sale, they’d only discover it if they have access to the MLS via a Realtor. The CEO of the nation’s largest MLS (CRMLS in California) publicly warned that hiding listings from the general public could be seen as discriminating against buyers who choose to be unrepresented. Every buyer, whether they have an agent or not, is “entitled to full and fair access to every property available for sale” on the usual platforms. Forcing consumers to consult an agent just to see all inventory might invite legal challenges from consumer groups or regulators. In fact, CRMLS believes that any policy that “force[s] consumers to use a real estate agent to see properties… will be extensively litigated” and could pose significant antitrust liability. The Department of Justice and FTC have scrutinized real estate rules in the past, and they may view this delayed-publication option skeptically, especially if it appears to limit consumer choice or competition. Our association must weigh whether introducing a rule that some buyers might perceive as exclusionary is worth the risk. We have a duty to uphold fair and transparent practices, and many brokers feel that all serious buyers should have equal opportunity to find a listing, not just those with agent access during an initial period.
• Zillow’s Response – Permanent Ban: A very pragmatic concern: Zillow, the largest real estate portal, has announced it will not cooperate with delayed listings at all. Zillow’s new policy (effective May 2025) states that if a listing is held back from syndication initially under this NAR rule, that listing will be permanently banned from Zillow’s site altogether. In other words, if a seller instructs us to delay sending their home to Zillow/IDX for, say, 5 days, Zillow has said it will never display that listing even after day 5. This is a deliberate stance by Zillow in opposition to the delayed marketing concept. The result is a serious consequence for sellers: choosing delayed syndication means losing Zillow’s audience completely. Given Zillow’s huge market share of online home searches, this could drastically reduce a listing’s exposure. No seller may want to accept that trade-off, even with a signed waiver. The irony is that a policy meant to offer sellers more choice could lead to their home being less visible on the most popular site even after the delay. This Zillow issue weighs heavily against implementing the delay option, it may cause confusion, unhappy clients, and friction with a major portal. (It’s worth noting that other portals’ stances are still emerging; some may follow Zillow’s lead. Meanwhile, Homes.com/Realtor.com have criticized Zillow’s move, but Zillow’s policy is a reality we must consider.)
• Limited Local Demand: Another practical point: We should ask is there actual demand or need for this option among our members and clients? In some large markets, high-profile brokerages (like Compass) have aggressively pushed for more off-MLS flexibility and even litigated against CCP. However, in our Central Arizona market, we currently do not have Compass agents or similar entities pressuring the MLS. Our brokers largely embraced CCP procedures, and there hasn’t been a loud call from sellers to restrict syndication. If very few (if any) of our sellers would opt to exclude portals, implementing this change might introduce complexity for little benefit. We’d have to create new MLS rules, educate everyone, update systems, an administrative burden, only to possibly see the feature seldom used. Some might argue: if it’s not broken, why fix it? Especially when the status quo of full immediate syndication is working fine for most listings. Before adopting any change, we should be sure there’s a meaningful use-case in our area.
• Operational and Ethical Challenges: Implementing a delayed marketing category could pose some compliance and ethical questions. For example, how do we ensure agents don’t misuse the delayed period to hoard a listing? Since the listing is in MLS and technically any subscriber can act on it, overt abuse is unlikely, but consider if an agent might advise every seller to delay syndication just to try to double-end the deal (hoping to find a buyer in-house first). This would run counter to the spirit of cooperation. We would need to monitor usage and perhaps set guidelines so that “delayed” status isn’t misused (similar to how “Coming Soon” status rules often prevent showings or direct buyer offers). Additionally, the MLS will need clear business rules on how long the delay lasts and what happens after, for instance, does the listing auto-syndicate after X days, and does it then show as “new” to the public or with accumulated days-on-market? There is some technical complexity in configuring this and ensuring data accuracy. All these details would need to be ironed out, which is doable but adds to the workload of MLS staff and committee members.

In summary, the arguments against adopting the delayed syndication option locally include the risk of reduced exposure (possibly harming sellers’ outcomes), fairness concerns for consumers, the deterrent of Zillow’s non-participation, a lack of clear demand in our market, and the added complexity and monitoring that such a policy entails. These are serious considerations that many brokers in our area have already voiced informally.

Next Steps – We Need Your Input: The Central Arizona Association of REALTORS® (through our MLS Committee and Board) must decide by the end of September how to proceed. According to NAR, we have full discretion, we can implement a delayed marketing option with a chosen time window, or we can opt not to implement it at all if we believe it doesn’t suit our market. This is not a decision the leadership wants to make in a vacuum. We are seeking our members’ feedback to guide us. To facilitate this discussion, we invite all our brokers to a Broker Brunch on August 15, 2025 at 10:00 AM (at the Association office) to learn more and share your perspective. This forum will be an opportunity to ask questions, express support or concerns, and hear what fellow brokers think about allowing a delayed syndication option in our MLS.

Our goal as an Association is to remain neutral and open-minded while gathering input – we understand there are valid points on both sides of this issue. Ultimately, we want a policy that best fits our local market and minimizes risk. After the August 15th session, and after considering member feedback, the CAAR leadership will make an informed determination on whether to implement the “Multiple Listing Options for Sellers” policy and, if so, under what parameters (length of delay, rules during delay, etc.). We will communicate any decisions or rule changes to all members well before any implementation.

In the meantime, we encourage all members to educate themselves on this topic. NAR has provided resources such as an infographic and FAQ on the “Multiple Listing Options for Sellers”. We have cited key points from NAR’s official announcement and other industry analyses in this article to help you understand the issue. Please feel free to reach out with any questions, and make sure to attend the August 15th Broker Brunch if you can. Your input is invaluable in shaping how our MLS evolves. Together, let’s ensure we continue to serve our clients’ best interests while upholding the values of cooperation and fairness in our marketplace.

Sources:

• NAR Announcement: “NAR Introduces New Flexibility for Sellers While Retaining Clear Cooperation Policy,” Realtor® Magazine, Mar. 25, 2025.
• NAR Legal Affairs: “Hot Topics in Broker Risk Reduction – Multiple Listing Options for Sellers,” May 2025.
• Inman News: “MLSs scramble to assess and implement new NAR MLS policy,” Mar. 31, 2025.
• RISMedia Op-Ed: “Zillow’s New Listing Ban Isn’t About Fairness—It’s About Control,” Apr. 14, 2025.