Howard Hanna Real Estate Services, one of the largest independent brokerages in the country and a long-time critic of the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), is choosing to defy NAR’s recent decision to affirm the controversial Clear Cooperation policy.
The brokerage informed dozens of MLSs and NAR yesterday that it does not consider Clear Cooperation “binding”—though the rule has always been mandatory.
“Hanna Holdings (the brokerage’s parent company) and its affiliates and franchisees will determine on a market-by-market basis whether to require their listing brokers to submit listings on a multiple listing service within one day of marketing the property to the public,” wrote Hoby Hanna, Howard Hanna CEO, in a letter shared with the MLSs and obtained by RISMedia.
“It will make these decisions based on its own business interests and independent of NAR and of any other brokerage,” Hanna continued.
The decision by Howard Hanna—the seventh-largest brokerage by sales volume in 2024, according to RISMedia’s Power Broker Report—represents a remarkable escalation of the long-running dispute over Clear Cooperation, which NAR had hoped to put to rest in March when it affirmed the policy.
A spokesperson for Howard Hanna clarified that there would be “no immediate change to how our brokers handle MLS submissions,” and that the brokerage was not withdrawing from any MLS. Instead, Howard Hanna is “advocating for (Clear Cooperation) to be revisited—not disregarded.”
“Our broader hope is that individual MLSs will consider adopting policies that reflect the unique needs of their markets, rather than strictly adhering to a national mandate from NAR. We believe local control fosters better innovation and serves both agents and sellers more effectively,” the spokesperson wrote.
The decision is “allowing flexibility across our markets as we evaluate how best to work within each MLS,” according to the spokesperson, without providing further details.
“We fully support the MLS as a valuable broker-to-broker tool, but we do not believe organized real estate should enforce a one-size-fits-all rule that limits how listings can be marketed. If the policy is revisited, we will evaluate our participation at that point,” the spokesperson said.
It was not immediately clear what the consequences would be for Howard Hanna’s refusal to follow the policy. In an emailed statement, an NAR spokesperson said simply that “Clear Cooperation remains a mandatory policy.”
“MLSs are responsible for enforcing MLS policies. By joining a REALTOR® association-owned MLS, participants and subscribers agree to comply with the MLS rules and regulations.”
NAR affirmed earlier this year that it “does not recommend specific penalties for certain offenses or for violations of particular rules.”
At the same time, NAR also says that discipline “should be progressive.”
“Repeated or subsequent violations should result in more serious forms of discipline being utilized, including substantial fines, suspension, and termination of MLS rights and privileges,” the organization wrote.
MLSs where Howard Hanna has a significant market presence, including Bright MLS in the mid-Atlantic region and West Penn MLS in Pennsylvania, also did not immediately respond to RISMedia inquiries.
According to West Penn MLS’s bylaws, three violations of MLS rules within one year “may” result in suspension, termination or expulsion of the violator.
Howard Hanna’s dissent is a significant shift from how critics of Clear Cooperation have approached the issue. While New York-based Compass emerged as the chief critic of Clear Cooperation last year, it has stopped short of refusing to mandate its brokers enforce mandatory submission rules (though Compass CEO Robert Reffkin claimed that a majority of MLSs had already ceased enforcement).
Large MLSs have previously claimed that unnamed brokerages pressured them behind the scenes to repeal or modify Clear Cooperation, even threatening legal action. Compass last month sued NAR-independent NWMLS over its version of Clear Cooperation.
In his letter, Hanna calls Clear Cooperation a “bad policy” claiming it was first adopted based on “fear that brokers were pursuing novel marketing strategies and taking advantage of new technologies.”
“(T)he misguided Clear Cooperation Policy also demonstrates, more fundamentally, that NAR should not be dictating how Hanna Holdings and other brokerages operate their businesses,” he said.
Back in 2020, the policy was also subject to multiple lawsuits by private listing startups—which were eventually settled or suspended. The Department of Justice Antitrust Division has also singled out Clear Cooperation in its still-ongoing investigation into NAR.
Editor’s note: this story was updated at 10:03 a.m. eastern time with comments from a Howard Hanna spokesperson.
Editor’s note: this story was updated at 11:06 a.m. eastern time with a statement from NAR.
