HousingWireHousingWire
As MLSs across the country work to implement the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) Multiple Listing Options for Sellers (MLOS) policy, brokerages and some Realtor associations are busy creating the new disclosures needed for delayed marketing exempt listings.
Over the weekend, Compass‘s new “Addendum to Listing Agreement” form began to circulate on social media alongside the “seller advisory” form debuted last week by eXp Realty.
While both forms discuss private and delayed marketing listings, these listing strategies are framed very differently. This should come as no surprise given the firms’ differing views on NAR’s Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP).
Three-phase marketing
Compass’s form outlines what it has coined as its “three-phase marketing strategy,” in which a property is listed as a Compass Private Exclusive, then as a Compass Coming Soon, and lastly on the MLS if it has failed to sell during the first two phases.
According to the form, this strategy gives sellers “multiple opportunities to make a first impression prior to [their] property being offered on the MLS.”
The client can then select options A (private exclusive), B (coming soon) or C (on the MLS). They must sign to acknowledge that if they chose options A or B, they are doing so “for marketing, privacy, security, or other legitimated nondiscriminatory reasons.” Additionally, the form notes that if a property is marketed as a private exclusive, it will not be publicly advertised through the MLS.
The form discusses risks, but instead of mentioning any potential risk of not advertising on the MLS, the form stresses the negative impact that days on market or price drop history can have on a property’s value.
Douglas Miller, an attorney at Miller Law PLLC and executive director for Consumer Advocates in American Real Estate, wrote in an email that Compass’ marketing plan is not “consumer-forward” and instead is a “structured funnel that prioritizes internal deal flow.”
“The form provided by Compass is written to give the appearance of sophisticated strategy and informed consent, but in reality, they’re structured to protect brokerages — not consumers. They shift risk onto the seller while preserving control for the firm,” Miller wrote. “They sanitize what is, at its core, a form of legalized steering that undermines fiduciary duty and suppresses market competition.
“The seller is given options, but it’s hard to argue meaningful informed consent when the language is carefully framed to favor in-house marketing and downplay external risks. These phases aren’t about helping sellers — they’re about controlling inventory,” he added.
Stephen Brobeck, a senior fellow at the Consumer Policy Institute, also feels that the Compass form is not consumer friendly. In his opinion, the length of the form — combined with its small type face and the notion that most sellers will not understand the options they are given — will lead consumers to do whatever their agent tells them, rather than making a truly informed decision.
Brobeck also highlighted the lack of risk disclosures.
“There is no disclosure that if property is being privately listed but publicly marketed in any way, it probably never will be able to be listed by Zillow and Redfin,” he added.
According to a Compass spokesperson, everything the firm does “follows all the guidelines and compliance requirements of all the markets” the brokerage operates in.
“As a publicly traded company, obviously, everything we do [is to] the highest standards of regulatory and compliance review,” the spokesperson told HousingWire. “There’s nothing we’re doing that from a regulatory perspective or compliance perspective has not been thoroughly vetted or approved, and nothing we are doing is new.”
Compare and contrast
Given eXp’s support of CCP, it is unsurprising that its “seller advisory” form carries a very different tone than Compass’s form.
The document has a subhead that reads “Risks of limited market exposure,” and it outlines four ways in which privately listing a home could impact a seller. These include limited buyer exposure, financial risk, longer time on market, and the possibility that the listing may be ineligible to be posted on public listing portals like Zillow and Redfin.
“eXp Realty strongly encourages you to consider exposure to the broadest market possible which include the MLS and broader public marketing channels available to all consumers, prior to accepting an offer,” the form states.
“Prior to engaging in any form of ‘office exclusive’ or ‘private listing network’ or ‘pocket listings,’ it is imperative to establish priorities and assess the potential ramifications of restricted visibility on both buyer demand and transaction results.”
According to Brobeck, the information included in this form should be disclosed to all home sellers. “And because the document is written in plain English in large type and requires seller acknowledgement, it is likely to be read,” he added.
While Miller feels that the tone of eXp’s disclosure is “more honest,” he believes the document mainly functions as a “cover-your-assets form.”
“It correctly warns that limited market exposure may reduce buyer competition, lower sales price, and extend time on market — but it still places the burden on the seller to assess these risks,” he wrote.
“Most sellers have no frame of reference to understand how exposure decisions impact outcomes, especially when their understanding is shaped entirely by a commission-incentivized agent. The form stops short of naming the obvious: that pocket listings and delayed marketing primarily benefit agents, not sellers.”
In general, Miller believes that there should not be a standard delayed marketing listing disclosure, as he feels there is no standard scenario for a consumer to choose this marketing strategy.
“These situations are highly fact-dependent,” Miller wrote. “They require a full understanding of the seller’s goals, risks, and vulnerabilities — not just a checkbox. A generic form will never provide meaningful informed consent. In fact, I’d argue that a properly drafted disclosure, if it truly included all the risks and downsides, would almost always result in the seller rejecting the idea altogether.”
In short, Miller said he feels the brokerages that promulgate these disclosure forms are using them “to create the appearance of disclosure without ensuring the seller truly understands the consequences. That’s not informed consent — it’s manufactured consent. And it’s dangerous and probably illegal.”
Prepping for changes
Leo Pareja, the CEO of eXp Realty, told HousingWire in an emailed statement that while the MLOS policy does not go into effect until September, he did not want his agents to be caught flatfooted.
This prompted Pareja and his team to replicate their effort with the buyer agency agreement form they created in the summer of 2024 in response to the NAR commission lawsuit settlement agreement.
“Holly [Mabery] and I determined that the best way to ensure full disclosure was to create our own version that could be used across all 50 states,” Pareja wrote. “We believe in seller choice, accompanied by seller truth. If a seller truly needs privacy, we support that — but only after fully explaining the trade-offs.
“We believe in buyer choice, which has been lost in this conversation. Buyers should have access to all available inventory without being forced to work with one particular company. We believe this steering campaign — by a company pushing sellers into a private exclusive funnel — is a fair housing nightmare. Both the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals and the Consumer Federation of America have sounded the alarm on this.”
While real estate compliance consultant Summer Goralik declined to comment on the brokerage-specific forms, she wrote an opinion piece for Inman News on how state regulators may perceive private listings.
Goralik noted that if privately listing a property is truly driven by a seller’s preference or needs, and not something pushed by the brokerage or agent, then the disclosure form will reflect the consumer’s “informed decision-making.”
“When that happens, regulators can see that the brokerage upheld its fiduciary duty, prioritized the client’s best interest and did not sacrifice transparency for the sake of convenience, control or financial self-interest,” she wrote.
“But when that narrative doesn’t hold, when the rationale for avoiding the MLS looks more like a business strategy than a client-specific need, that’s when real trouble begins. Brokers and agents, don’t mistake business creativity for legal immunity.”
