Rules surrounding the public marketing of listings is a hot and divisive topic in the real estate industry, one that state lawmakers are weighing in on. Connecticut, for instance, is on the verge of passing a bill that sets new rules on this front; passed by both houses of the state legislature, it awaits either signage or veto from Governor Ned Lamont.
The bill has three main provisions. For one, it simply changes the term “real estate salesperson” to “real estate agent.” The other two provisions are more technical, concerning listing marketing and also agent education requirements.
Per the text of the bill, brokers and landlords must make listings of one- to four-unit properties available to the public, to “promote transparency and ensure open and nondiscriminatory access to property information for all prospective buyers or tenants.” If a seller or landlord is marketing on a private listing network, they must market simultaneously on a public space.
Real estate giant Compass has been a prominent supporter of private listing networks, framing their usage as part of “seller choice” regarding how properties are represented and marketed. The brokerage recently announced a plan with Chicago-based MLS Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) to take its private listing network nationwide, drawing mixed response from the industry.
Other prominent real estate figures and businesses have taken a more negative view of private listings, arguing they are exclusionary. Brown Harris Stevens CEO Bess Freedman, in op-eds written for RISMedia, has criticized the “limited exposure” offered by private listing networks.
Compass recently engaged in (now-dropped) litigation with Zillow over the latter’s restrictions on what listings could appear on Zillow platforms. In May 2026, Zillow sued Compass and MRED, claiming their latest moves are an illegal conspiracy to undermine Zillow’s business and get it to drop the aforementioned listing rules.
Connecticut does not stand alone here. Other states, such as Washington and Wisconsin, have passed legislation to limit the exclusivity of private listings. However, during Compass’ Q1 2026 earnings call on Tuesday, May 5, CEO Robert Reffkin addressed the passage of such bills and indicated they do not undermine Compass’ strategy.
The Connecticut bill specifically specifies that while a multiple listing service counts as public advertising, an MLS is not the only such space. The bill specifically highlights public-facing websites or listing portals as compatible with the law.
The one exception to this requirement is if the seller or landlord completes a form wherein they opt out of public marketing. The standard form, included in the text of the bill, makes the claim that lack of public marketing could reduce the final sale/lease price and asks if the seller/landlord understands this.
The third provision, tackling real estate agent education, mandates a two-year license renewal for real estate agents, with a minimum completion time of two hours per mandated course, a reduction from the current three hour minimum. The courses include education on current real estate law, and license applicants must pay an $8 fee to cover administrative costs.
The bill is supported by the Connecticut Association of Realtors®. In correspondence with RISMedia, the Association outlined its endorsement of all three major provisions of the bill.
“Changing the term ‘real estate salesperson’ to ‘real estate agent’ better reflect(s) the range of services that real estate licensees provide including leasing and consulting,” the association said. The rules around public listings will affirm “informed consent” from sellers and landlords, the association continued. As for the education credit requirements: “Often course providers would struggle to find additional content for a third hour on some topics. This does not change the total number of hours needed to renew a license.”
“The intent of the bill is to make sure when a seller makes the decision not to publicly market their home they are fully aware of what that means, including the possibility that they might miss out on offers with more favorable terms or a higher price. That’s why we wanted to have a clear discourse that the seller signs confirming they understand the potential impacts. We also recognize there may be times when a seller may need to or desire to have their home privately marketed. We wanted to be able to preserve their right to do that,” the association added about the public marketing rules.
Among lawmakers, the bill has seen bipartisan support; of its four sponsors, three are Republicans and one is a Democrat. It also received unanimous approval in both the House and Senate votes. While Lamont could theoretically veto the bill, this level of support suggests the legislators have sufficient numbers to also (again, theoretically) override the veto.
