A few weeks ago, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed SB 340, requiring residential listings to be publicly accessible the moment any marketing begins. Connecticut joins Washington State and Wisconsin as the third state in the union to restrict private listings. Soon, it appears that the initial three states will be joined by New York, Illinois, and Hawaii—with other states considering their options. The Connecticut Association of Realtors® backed the bill.
In the high-end market—and Connecticut has no shortage of high-end transactions—there are legitimate scenarios where a seller values discretion. A principal who doesn’t want a parade of strangers through their estate or a family navigating a sensitive life event, may have real reasons to request a quieter process. I understand that, and I respect it. SB 340 preserves that choice through an opt-out mechanism: sellers who want privacy can sign a form and get it.
But that’s precisely the point. The choice belongs to the seller, made with full information and in writing, with informed consent. What SB 340 prevents is the alternative—sellers and buyers both operating in an information vacuum because a brokerage decided a private network served its interests.
Connecticut is not an island. Roughly 47,000 Connecticut residents commute to New York City jobs, bringing $11.4 billion in earnings back into the state. These are exactly the buyers and sellers transacting in our market. They are financially sophisticated, they are mobile and they compare Connecticut to other markets constantly. What draws them here—our towns, our schools, our quality of life—deserves a marketplace that is equally transparent and trustworthy.
When private listing networks flourish, buyers in that pool lose access to inventory they don’t even know exists. They can’t make competitive decisions about a home they never knew was for sale. And sellers, often without realizing it, may well be leaving money on the table by accepting offers from a narrow pool rather than a competitive market (and statistics prove that).
Some brokerages argue that private listings protect sellers, create exclusivity, and deliver better outcomes. With respect, the evidence points the other way. What private listings reliably protect is the brokerage’s ability to double-end a transaction by keeping it within its own network. That is not the same thing as serving the seller. A seller is best served by maximum exposure, competitive bidding and price discovery that only an open market can produce.
While there are differences between Connecticut’s SB 340 and Washington’s SB 6091, their intent is to support transparency and access, the lifeblood of our industry. Connecticut’s opt-out-based approach respects the legitimate privacy needs that do exist in our market while firmly establishing that the norm, the baseline, is openness.
Connecticut did something smart here. It looked at what transparency actually requires…not just for a specific type of buyer or a specific price point, but for the health of the market as a whole. A real estate market that works well for everyone depends on shared information. The moment we start carving out information advantages for certain brokerages, we undermine the trust that makes this industry function.
SB 340 is a step toward a Connecticut real estate market that buyers, sellers and agents can all trust. That’s good for our profession, and it’s good for the state.
For more information visit https://www.bhhsneproperties.com/.
