What federal laws or FTC actions changed real estate commission practices for 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal actions tied to a major antitrust lawsuit and a subsequent settlement with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) changed how commissions are displayed and negotiated: listings no longer show buyer‑agent commission offers on MLS and buyers increasingly must negotiate fees directly with agents [1] [2]. The FTC has a long record of policing competition in real estate and continued enforcement and guidance in 2024–25, though recent FTC activity cited in sources focuses more broadly on real‑estate competition and related consumer protections than on a single new federal statute [3] [4].
1. A court settlement—not a new federal statute—reordered commission mechanics
The largest, most visible change beginning in 2024–25 flowed from private antitrust litigation against the NAR and a settlement that required rewriting longstanding industry practices — notably removing the routine posting of buyer‑agent commissions in MLS listings and ending the de facto “seller pays both agents” norm [5] [1]. Coverage across outlets describes this as a judicially driven, industry‑level reform rather than legislation passed by Congress [5] [1].
2. What changed in practice: MLS disclosure and negotiation moved off the listing
Under the new rules implementated after the settlement, seller‑side offerings to split commissions may no longer be standardized in MLS fields; compensation conversations now happen outside the MLS and buyers generally must negotiate fees directly with their agents or sign fee agreements up front [2] [1]. Journalists and industry analysts say this makes commission costs more transparent in theory but has largely been a paperwork and process shift in early 2025 [6] [7].
3. Market effects so far: muted headline savings, mixed data
Early empirical readings show commissions have not collapsed. Redfin and other analysts reported buyer‑agent rates were roughly in line with prior years (for example, Redfin found average buyer‑agent commission near ~2.4% in mid‑2025), and several outlets reported little immediate change in total costs to sellers and buyers during the first buying seasons after the rule changes [8] [7] [6]. Multiple sources note localized declines or changes for specific price bands, but overall effects appear muted through early 2025 [8] [7].
4. Workarounds and industry resistance: agents finding non‑MLS channels
Reporting found agents and brokerages using phone, email and off‑MLS communications to continue commission arrangements, which blunts the settlement’s intended disruption [2]. Critics and plaintiff groups argued the settlement allows buyer agents’ compensation to be negotiated—but industry practices and low consumer awareness have constrained rapid change [2] [9].
5. The FTC’s role: enforcement, advocacy and a long arc on real‑estate competition
The Federal Trade Commission has long treated real‑estate brokerage practices as a competition issue, challenging restrictive MLS rules and urging consumer choice [3]. Sources show the FTC publishes reports, comments and enforcement actions aimed at preserving competition in real estate; recent FTC work in 2024–25 emphasized broader competition and consumer protection rather than a single new rule that directly rewrote commission norms [3] [10].
6. Related FTC activity in 2025—consumer protection rather than commission mandates
FTC press and reporting in 2025 documented enforcement against scams and deceptive practices in mortgages and rentals, and rulemaking efforts around deceptive rental fees; those actions reinforce the agency’s consumer‑protection posture in housing markets but are distinct from the NAR settlement that changed commission wiring [4] [11]. Available sources do not mention the FTC issuing a standalone federal regulation that directly prescribes commission rates or requires sellers to stop paying buyer agents [4] [11].
7. Who benefits, who may lose: distributional tradeoffs flagged by analysts
Policy analysts and industry observers warn the changes could save many sellers money over time, but also could shift costs onto buyers who must pay agents directly [12] [13]. The Urban Institute and other commentators emphasize potential financing and appraisal implications if buyer commissions move off the sales price, and they caution some buyers—especially first‑timers—may be squeezed if they must bring cash for agent fees [14].
8. What to watch next: enforcement, consumer uptake, and market structure
Future impact will hinge on three things: how strictly courts and regulators police collusive behavior or covert commission arrangements [3], whether consumers and buyers sign fee agreements and shop for lower‑cost service, and whether brokerages adapt with explicit fee menus or performance‑based contracts that change average commission levels [2] [9]. Available sources do not mention a single new federal law mandating these outcomes; instead, the mix of court settlement, market behavior and FTC oversight is reshaping practice [5] [3].
Limitations: reporting cited here is from news organizations, industry analyses and FTC materials in the supplied set; those sources document the settlement, practice changes and FTC’s broader competition work but do not show a federal statute that alone changed commission rules [5] [3].