Why the NAR Settlement’s Buyer Agreements Are Making Real Estate Harder — Without Necessarily Helping Buyers

I’ve been in this business a long time, and the post-NAR settlement rules around buyer-broker agreements still frustrate me more than almost anything that’s come out of that process. On paper, the changes were sold as greater transparency and more competition. In practice, they’ve added friction, uncertainty, and new constraints that didn’t exist before — while making it harder for agents to get paid for the work we do.

Under the settlement that took effect in August 2024, MLS participants working with buyers must have a written agreement in place before touring a home. That agreement has to spell out a specific,
objectively ascertainable fee — not the old open-ended “whatever the seller offers.” At the same time, offers of compensation can no longer appear on the MLS. Sellers and listing brokers can still offer compensation or concessions, but it has to happen off-MLS through direct negotiation.

The old system had legitimate antitrust problems. Blanket offers of compensation on the MLS were criticized for inflating commissions and encouraging steering. Removing that public offer was a direct response to those claims. But the replacement created its own set of issues.

Buyers now have to sign a formal agreement early — often before they’ve really tested whether an agent is a good fit, has the bandwidth, or knows the local market well enough. That early lock-in limits flexibility. If the agent is unavailable or the relationship isn’t working, switching isn’t as simple as it used to be. You’re dealing with a contract, potential termination terms, and
procuring-cause questions. Agents with limited availability
effectively hold clients who might otherwise shop around. Even the Department of Justice raised concerns during the settlement process that requiring written agreements before tours could limit competition among buyer brokers rather than enhance it.

From the broker’s side, the job got harder. Compensation is no longer relatively predictable. You’re left checking whether a particular property will offer anything, negotiating a credit or concession, or hoping the buyer can or will pay out of pocket. Many buyers resist writing that check, especially when they’re already stretched on down payment and closing costs. The result is more time spent on
quasi-deals and paperwork just to cover expenses and get paid for work already performed.

Does this improve service to buyers? Not necessarily. Good service has always depended on the individual agent’s knowledge, skill, and ethics — not on who writes the commission check. Forcing an early contractual commitment doesn’t magically raise the quality of representation. In some cases it may narrow options, as agents rationally focus on properties where compensation is clearer or where the buyer can cover the fee. First-time and cash-constrained buyers can end up with fewer choices or decide to go without representation altogether.

I keep hearing people ask why we don’t just push to put the commission offer line back on the MLS. The answer is straightforward and frustrating: the settlement and the resulting MLS policy changes prohibit it. NAR agreed to those practice changes as the price of settling the lawsuits. Participating MLSs adopted the rules. Reinstating the field would violate the court-approved terms and invite fresh legal risk. Individual agents and even local associations can’t simply reverse a settled federal antitrust resolution by popular demand.

Everything in real estate has always been negotiable. Removing the transparent offer of compensation didn’t make negotiation freer in practice — it made the process more opaque and administrative. From a broker’s perspective, the new framework is less efficient, less predictable, and more burdensome without a clear corresponding improvement in outcomes for the people we’re supposed to serve.

We’re still adapting more than two years later. The core problem remains: a system that was supposed to increase competition and transparency has instead introduced new rigidities that make the daily work of representing buyers more difficult.

AI Disclaimer: This post was prepared with AI assistance for research, fact-checking, and initial drafting. I am not an attorney. Any opinions expressed here that could be construed as legal opinions should be independently verified with a qualified attorney and should not be relied upon as legal advice.