The CCP illusion: NAR's Jedi mind trick on a failing policy
- Summer Goralik
- Apr 6
- 9 min read
Updated: 5 days ago
By Summer Goralik
Yes, you read that correctly — the Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP) has become little more than an illusion, a fleeting mirage. While headlines and articles dissect the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) latest actions, some calling them a victory, others pushing for more, the real story lies beneath the surface: CCP is fading fast, and NAR’s recent decisions may have sealed its fate.
A Jedi mind trick?
If this long-awaited move by NAR feels like a Jedi mind trick, you’re not alone. One moment, NAR affirms that CCP will live on, only to follow up with a watered-down version designed to appease its policy opponents. It goes something like this:
Realtor: Wait … didn’t CCP just get gutted?
NAR (waving hand): CCP is stronger than ever.
Realtor: CCP is stronger than ever.
But is it really? What does the pro-CCP camp really think about these changes? Let’s unpack the latest developments.
The introduction of the multiple listing options for sellers policy
In response to the ongoing debate over the Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP), NAR has unveiled the highly anticipated Multiple Listing Options for Sellers Policy. According to NAR’s frequently asked questions:
“The Multiple Listing Options for Sellers Policy will work alongside CCP and other MLS policies to provide sellers and their agents more options and choice when marketing a property, while also supporting fair housing by providing buyers and their agents with equal access to important MLS property information.”
This new policy introduces Delayed Marketing Exempt Listings (DMEL) — listings that are filed in the MLS but allow the listing broker to delay public marketing through the Internet Data Exchange (IDX) and syndication for a period determined by the local MLS.
Importantly, these listings may still be marketed by the listing firm in a manner consistent with the seller’s preferences. They can also be displayed via Virtual Office Websites (VOWs), which require a broker-consumer relationship for visibility. As a side note, I believe there’s more to come on how this will play out with regard to the portals.
More complexity, not clarity
For those who prefer to read between the lines, here’s the deal: Rather than promoting clarity, NAR has added another layer of complexity, creating yet another exemption to the CCP under the guise of “seller choice.” Put simply, NAR had an opportunity to simplify and reinforce transparency in real estate. Instead, it made an already complex system even more convoluted.
With this new option, an industry that once seemed firmly aboard the real estate transparency train has veered further into opacity.
This brings us to the new CCP menu. We now have three tiers of listings: office exclusives, delayed marketing exempt listings and active listings. Depending on the MLS, there may be even more options, such as “Coming Soon.” Only the last category — an active MLS listing, “the final frontier” — is truly transparent.
Is it just me, or is “seller choice,” as defined by these options, becoming increasingly convoluted? The MLS is starting to resemble a picked-over buffet where potential buyers, who often must be represented to gain full visibility, are left to sift through a scattered assortment of listings, each with different levels of access.
Impact on buyers
Although I’ve just begun to wrap my head around it, this decision comes with potentially troubling consequences. While DMELs will be in the MLS, they won’t appear on IDX-based public search sites, meaning unrepresented buyers could miss out on key listings.
If private listings become more common through the already existing exemption structure of the CCP, buyer choice — something not often prioritized by critics of the CCP — will become more limited, as buyers will be forced to work with brokers who hold the exclusive inventory.
Speaking of buyers, Glenn Kelman grabbed my attention in his op-ed piece when he said, “For our entire history, Redfin has upheld one bedrock principle: You shouldn’t have to engage a broker to see all the homes for sale or even to buy one. The only reason people should hire us is because they value our service.”
Unrepresented buyers, as well as first-time homebuyers already grappling with housing supply challenges, might not be thrilled with the additional layer of semi-transparent listings introduced in the updated version of the Clear Cooperation Policy.
While the focus is on expanding “seller choice,” it raises the question: What about the buyers? Yes, buyers — while not sellers — are also consumers who want to benefit from a consumer-oriented real estate industry that touts transparency.
A missed opportunity for simplicity
What is even more ironic and equally frustrating is that NAR had the perfect opportunity to simplify the landscape. The Department of Justice (DOJ) just signaled in the Nosalek case that CCP itself is not inherently anti-competitive, particularly now that mandatory offers of compensation are gone.
This means NAR could have simply eliminated “office exclusives” and moved toward a cleaner, more open system. Of course, this is what proponents of CCP have been advocating for. Instead, it did the opposite. It left office exclusives intact while adding yet another listing status category or semi-transparency option with DMELs.
The trouble with optional listing data
One of the most concerning aspects of NAR’s revised CCP is how it treats critical listing data, specifically “Days on Market” (DOM) and price change history, which are now optional at the local MLS level.
This data has been at the center of the CCP debate, with one side advocating to suppress it in the name of “seller choice” and the other, where I imagine regulators stand, arguing it should remain visible. At its core, this data reflects objective facts about a listing — its market history and pricing trends — whether some prefer to keep it out of sight or not.
Each local MLS will now decide whether to track and/or display this information. If major MLSs choose to withhold it, buyers will lose valuable insights into a property’s history, making it harder to make informed decisions and further distorting the true state of the market.
As a real estate compliance consultant, I have never been a fan of non-disclosure or presenting a picture of a property that is anything less than true and accurate. Consumers rely on transparent and honest information, and I stand firmly with them on this. If I dust off my old Department of real estate investigator hat, I can almost guarantee that if agents have the choice and decide not to disclose DOM, it could spark regulatory complaints.
On that note, I reached out to Wayne Bell, former California Real Estate Commissioner, for his perspective on the recent changes. He had this to say:
“Data is critical in the homeselling and homebuying processes. ‘Days on Market’ has been and remains an especially important metric, providing real insights into market demand and how a home is perceived by buyers and real estate licensees. A longer time on the market often acts as a red flag, signaling that a home might be overpriced or less desirable. Buyers frequently use this information to negotiate a lower price.
The timer for ‘Days on Market’ should start when a home is listed and marketing begins. Historically, this information has always been included in multiple listing services. Who benefits when this data is withheld? Home sellers and listing agents. Who is disadvantaged? The homebuying public and the real estate agents working with them. In my mind, Days on Market needs to be disclosed by real estate licensees because that number is directly tied to value.”
Bell’s insight raises an important question: If transparency in real estate is meant to benefit consumers, why allow MLSs to decide whether to obscure it?
The real-life Legend of Zelda: Navigating the listing maze
And here’s where it starts to feel like a real-life version of The Legend of Zelda — the classic video game I loved so much as a kid. In the game, you’re navigating a labyrinth of clues, hidden rooms and constantly evolving challenges to unlock the next step. It was thrilling on screen, but the real-life version of this listing maze — complete with MLS rules and optional mandates (yes, an oxymoron) — trying to figure out how to unlock the entire listing inventory, is making my head hurt.
The complexity, the layers of exception, the sheer number of paths to get from one point to another. It’s like being stuck in a never-ending cycle, and the more you try to understand it, the more tangled it becomes.
The fragmentation of MLS and industry consequences
When you start to peel the onion here, and trust me, it’s an onion, it inevitably seems like local MLSs are now left to sort out the mess that has been the No. 1 hot topic in real estate for months.
Large brokerages, their biggest subscribers, will likely push for longer DMEL timeframes before listings must go fully active. During that time, these listings may be quietly marketed and sold without traditional exposure. Perhaps just long enough to double-end the deal before it ever sees the light of the active listing status in the MLS. If this happens widely, it erodes the value of the MLS itself.
It also brings us back to one of the compelling arguments made by pro-CCP supporters. They have long warned the industry about the rise in potential lawsuits from sellers who may feel harmed as a result of not being marketed on the MLS, but rather off-MLS or now as a DMEL. Granted, even with a seller disclosure evidencing informed consent, that does not completely shield agents and their brokers from liability.
The traditional route meets private listing networks
As the industry adjusts to this shift, one potential outcome is that many listing agents will continue to rely on the traditional route of listing properties on the MLS, the tried-and-true method that has served the real estate industry for years.
However, there’s growing concern that if large brokerages begin embracing private listing networks, it could lead to more limited options for consumers. Worse still, agents may no longer have a choice in the matter, depending on the ethos of their brokerage. In this case, it could quickly become a situation where “if you can’t beat them, join them,” with brokers feeling compelled to adopt these new listing practices to stay competitive — leaving agents with no option but to follow suit.
The potential loss of listing data due to the rise of private exclusives could have far-reaching consequences. When listings don’t make it into the MLS, it distorts comps and undermines appraisals, which ultimately affects every consumer in the market.
CCP loopholes in broker-to-broker communication
And if the new flexible listing option of CCP wasn’t enough to make your head spin, NAR also clarified that broker-to-broker communication does not trigger CCP. Notably, that’s all they provided, without offering further explanation or detail. Unfortunately, this clarification is more like a cliffhanger and gives rise to other questions.
What loopholes could this potentially open? Is it one licensee to another or one entire brokerage firm to another? Could this lead to multiple off-market networks operating under the radar of the CCP, further reducing transparency?
If every major brokerage has a private listing network and can share listings with another brokerage without triggering CCP (don’t quote me on this, I could be wrong here), what happens to the spirit of cooperation that the MLS was built on?
If these networks grow in influence, the CCP effectively becomes meaningless, even though, according to NAR, it’s still in effect. There’s that Jedi mind trick again. If there was ever a time for NAR to provide clarification about their clarification, I think the industry would appreciate it.
Final reflections
Moreover, this new path under CCP, presented under the guise of expanded “seller choice,” ultimately weakens the very purpose of the MLS: to provide a centralized, transparent marketplace that benefits both buyers and sellers.
The reality is, many sellers will eventually become buyers themselves — so how does limiting transparency in one transaction benefit them in the next? It’s a classic case of “practice what you preach.” Sometimes, it takes hard lessons to learn properly. But even so, I would have preferred for the industry to learn the easier way.
Rather than firmly reinforcing CCP and guaranteeing fair access to listings, NAR has shifted the responsibility to local MLSs, which will inevitably lead to a fragmented landscape of interpretations and enforcement. The outcome? Increased complexity, less consistency and diminished transparency.
I wanted to see a win-win here, but I just can’t. In the end, NAR’s actions have effectively derailed CCP, leaving its original intent in the dust. What does this mean for all consumers who were promised greater transparency and equal access? After these changes reshape the dynamics of the real estate industry yet again, will NAR have any regrets?
Perhaps, if I am going to end this piece with a question, the more important one is this: How much further can transparency be compromised before the very foundation of the MLS is unrecognizable?
Note: The opinions, suggestions, and recommendations contained in this discussion are based on Summer Goralik’s experience working for the California Department of Real Estate and as a real estate compliance consultant. They should not be considered legal advice or relied upon as such. You should consult with your brokerage and/or appropriate legal counsel in your jurisdiction for further clarification.
About the Author
Summer Goralik is a Real Estate Compliance Consultant and licensed Real Estate Broker (#02022805). Summer offers real estate brokers a variety of consulting services including assistance with California Department of Real Estate investigations and audit preparation, mock audits, brokerage compliance guidance, advertising review, and training. She helps licensees evaluate their regulatory compliance and correct any non-compliant activities. Summer has an extensive background in real estate which includes private sector, regulatory and law enforcement experience. Prior to opening her consulting business in 2016, she worked for the Orange County District Attorney's Office as a Civilian Economic Crimes Investigator in their Real Estate Fraud Unit. Before that, Summer was employed as a Special Investigator for the DRE for six years. Among many achievements, she wrote several articles for the DRE, four of which were co-authored with former Real Estate Commissioner Wayne Bell. Prior to her career in government and law enforcement, Summer also worked in the escrow industry for nearly five years. For more information about Summer's background and services, please visit her website.
