Private Listings: The Full Truth Both Sides Are Avoiding

The private listings debate has become one of the most polarizing conversations in organized real estate — and in my view, it is being handled poorly by nearly everyone involved. Advocates are cherry-picking the benefits without acknowledging the risks. Critics are sounding alarms without acknowledging the legitimate reasons private listings exist. And somewhere in the middle of all this professional noise is a homeowner who simply wants to sell their house.

Here, I want to lay out the full case on both sides — as honestly and completely as I can — and then offer what I believe is the only responsible path forward. I will tell you upfront: I am pro-private listings. But I am also deeply concerned about what an unchecked private listings environment could do to the infrastructure of this industry. Both of those positions are true at the same time, and the fact that most people in this debate cannot hold both simultaneously is a big part of why we have not solved this yet.

So let’s take all the arguments — for and against — put them on the table, and then talk about what we actually do about it.

The case for private listings

The double commission is legitimate cusiness

Let me start by saying something that most people in this debate are tiptoeing around: when a listing brokerage keeps a home off the MLS and sells it in-house — meaning one of their own agents represents the buyer — that brokerage earns both sides of the commission from a single transaction. In a traditional cooperative sale, that commission is split between two brokerages. In a private, in-house sale, it all stays in one place.

That is a significant financial advantage for the brokerage. I want to be very clear: I do not think there is anything wrong with it. A brokerage that successfully matches its own listing with its own buyer has delivered real value and earned that outcome. Maximizing revenue per transaction is a legitimate business goal. I respect the model.

What is not acceptable is when that financial motivation goes undisclosed to the seller. Those are two very different things, and we will address that in the solutions section. For now, the point stands: the financial incentive is real, it is legitimate, and anyone who pretends it does not exist is not being straight with you.

One cook in the kitchen

Beyond the brokerage’s financial interest, there are genuine, seller-centered reasons to consider a private listing — and we should acknowledge them without apology.

Anyone who has been in real estate for more than six months understands that a two-agent transaction is not always a smooth transaction. When you have two professionals with different communication styles, different interpretations of contract language, different levels of urgency and competing client pressures all working the same deal, things can get messy. Timelines slip. Small misunderstandings escalate into large ones. In some cases, that friction genuinely costs clients money and time.

In my household, when the holidays roll around and my wife — a former chef — is preparing the meal, she makes one thing very clear: everyone else gets out of the kitchen. The result is always exceptional. Sometimes the best real estate transactions work the same way. One skilled professional, focused on one goal, with no interference, can deliver a cleaner outcome than two well-intentioned agents working at cross-purposes.

The portal problem: Days on market and price history are hurting sellers

Here is a benefit of private listings that almost nobody in this debate is discussing honestly: a private listing protects a seller from one of the most damaging features of today’s major real estate portals.

The moment a listing goes live on Zillow, Realtor.com, or any of the major syndicated platforms, a countdown clock starts ticking — and every buyer and their agent can watch it. Here is the real problem with that: days on market and price reduction history do not help buyers make better purchasing decisions. What they actually do is hijack the buyer’s focus entirely.

Instead of asking the only questions that matter — Do I love this home? Is it worth this price to me? — the buyer’s brain gets pulled sideways. They start doing math on the seller’s anxiety instead of evaluating the property. A house that has been on the market for 60 days or has had two price adjustments suddenly feels more negotiable — not because the home changed, but because that data created a story. The buyer stops being committed to buying a house and becomes committed to negotiating a deal. Those are two very different mindsets, and only one of them leads to a good outcome for anyone in the transaction.

In my opinion, days on market and price adjustment history have zero bearing on whether a home is the right fit for a buyer at the right price. That information belongs in a transaction file — not on a public billboard designed to shift a buyer’s attention away from the property and toward the seller’s vulnerability. A private listing eliminates that exposure entirely. For a seller who wants to protect their negotiating position, that is a meaningful advantage.

The property rights argument and why it matters more than people realize

This is the argument I feel most strongly about, and it is the one that gets the least attention in the mainstream debate.

Who gave us — as an industry — the right to tell a homeowner how to sell their own property?

When NAR, an MLS, or a brokerage network mandates that a listing must be shared with all cooperating members as a condition of working with Realtors at all, they are not protecting the consumer. They are restricting the consumer’s choices. And, NAR has already proven it does not fully grasp this distinction. Their attempt to address the private listings debate by allowing sellers to opt out of certain portal syndications was presented as consumer choice — but telling a homeowner which choices they are permitted to make is not choice. It is a curated menu.

True consumer choice means a homeowner can say: I want to list with one agent, have only that agent show my property, and that is the end of the story. Any rule, policy, or association mandate that imposes conditions on how a homeowner markets their own property is a restriction on private property rights. The seller did not join NAR. The seller did not agree to MLS rules. The seller owns a home and wants to sell it.

In a post-NAR-settlement environment, where the Department of Justice is already watching this industry with a very sharp eye, the last thing we need is to hand them another example of collective industry action that limits consumer freedom. When an industry collectively tells a consumer ‘you must do it our way or you cannot access our professional network,’ that is not a service model. That has the scent of monopolistic control, and the DOJ has made clear they recognize that scent.

The only bodies with legitimate authority to dictate how real estate transactions are conducted are state and federal law. Not associations. Not MLSs. Not brokerages. When we forget that distinction, we stop being a service industry and start looking like exactly what the DOJ has been accusing us of being.

The case against private listings

Fragmented inventory would decimate our industry

Now let me be equally direct about what an unchecked private listings environment would do to this industry — because the threat is real, and I do not think enough people are taking it seriously.

Our MLS system is one of the great structural achievements of American real estate. The ability of any buyer’s agent to access every cooperating listing on a single unified platform is something that buyers in most other countries cannot even imagine.

I coach and speak to real estate professionals around the world, and I can tell you without hesitation: the MLS is the envy of virtually every other country. It represents the industry’s clearest demonstration that we put consumer access ahead of competitive self-interest.

Imagine what happens if private listings become the norm rather than the exception. Buyers and their agents can no longer trust that the MLS represents a complete picture of what is available. Instead, they are forced to shop brokerage by brokerage — going to one firm to see what they have exclusive, then to another, then to another — hoping they are not missing the right home somewhere behind a closed door. That is not a consumer-friendly marketplace. That is a maze. And in that maze, buyers lose time, options and the ability to make fully informed decisions about what may be the largest purchase of their lives.

The fragmentation of inventory would not just inconvenience buyers. It would fundamentally undermine the value proposition of buyer representation. If a buyer’s agent cannot guarantee access to all available inventory, what exactly are they offering? The cooperative MLS model is what makes full buyer representation possible. Erode the MLS, and you erode the justification for buyer agency itself. That is not a small thing. That is the foundation of how half of our industry earns a living.

The seller pays the price, too

There is also a direct and measurable financial cost to the seller in a private listing arrangement — and it deserves to be stated plainly.

The fundamental principle of real estate pricing is not complicated: the more qualified buyers who see a property, the more demand is created, the more urgency builds and the higher the resulting sale price tends to be. Limiting the buyer pool limits competition. Limiting competition limits the seller’s proceeds. That is not a theory — it is basic economics, and it plays out in transaction data every day.

A seller who chooses a private listing for the right reasons, fully understanding this trade-off, has made an informed adult decision that we should respect. A seller who was steered toward a private listing without ever being told it might cost them money has been failed by the professional they trusted. The difference between those two outcomes is transparency — and right now, our industry is not consistently delivering it.

A proposed path forward

Private listings are not going away. The financial incentives are too strong, the consumer autonomy argument is too legitimate, and any attempt by organized real estate to collectively suppress them will trigger the exact antitrust scrutiny we cannot afford. So the question is not whether to allow private listings. The question is how we build a framework around them that protects consumers, preserves market infrastructure and keeps this industry out of the courtroom.

Here is what I believe that framework looks like — in order of impact and feasibility.

The federal solution: A national mandatory listing sharing law

The most effective and legally bulletproof solution to this entire debate is a federal law mandating that all residential listings be made available to all licensed agents through a national shared database. Full stop. No opt-outs. No exceptions.

Think about it this way: we do not give drivers the option to opt out of wearing a seatbelt because they find it inconvenient. We mandate it because the community benefit is too significant to leave to individual preference. The same logic applies here. A fully shared, universally accessible listing database produces better outcomes for sellers, buyers and the market as a whole. It is not a restriction on freedom — it is a recognition that some standards exist because the collective benefit demands them.

Here is the critical legal distinction that makes this solution so powerful: when a federal law mandates listing sharing, it is not an antitrust violation. The DOJ scrutiny our industry faces comes from collective action by private players — associations, MLSs, brokerages — imposing rules that restrict consumer behavior. A federal law is not industry self-regulation. It is the legitimate exercise of governmental authority, the same authority behind seatbelt laws, building codes and fair housing compliance. The mandate comes from Congress, not NAR. That changes everything legally.

If a homeowner does not want their property shared with all licensed agents, they retain a genuine and meaningful choice: sell it themselves as a for-sale-by-owner. That is a real fork in the road — full market access with professional representation, or complete seller independence without it.

What it is not is a curated industry menu that still tells homeowners what they are and are not allowed to do. And as an added bonus, consider what it means for our profession when the federal government of the United States tells every American homeowner that when you choose to work with a licensed real estate professional, that listing must be shared with all other licensed agents.

That is not a bureaucratic footnote. That is Congress validating — at the highest level of governmental authority — that a real estate license is not merely a sales permit. It is a professional credential that carries real responsibility, real standards and real consequence. In a time when our industry has taken blow after blow to its public credibility, that kind of federal recognition would be one of the most powerful statements ever made about the value of what we do.

Will the current Congress pass this? Probably not anytime soon. But that is not a reason to stop advocating for it loudly and consistently. It is the right policy, and right policies eventually find their moment.

The state solution: The more immediate path

While federal action may take years — or longer depending on the political landscape — state legislatures represent a faster and more achievable path to the same outcome. The mandate is identical: all residential listings must be made available to all licensed agents, with the only alternative being a for-sale-by-owner sale. Same principle, same consumer protection, same legal legitimacy — just implemented state by state rather than nationally.

I want to address something directly here, because there is a misconception circulating in our industry that needs to be corrected. Recent articles have celebrated the fact that 11 states have taken action on private listings as a significant win. It is not. What those states implemented, in most cases, was a disclosure requirement — sellers signing a statement acknowledging that a private listing may result in a lower sale price. That is a good thing, and I support it, but let’s be honest about what it is: a disclosure is not a mandate. It is a warning label. What we are talking about at the state level is fundamentally different — a law that actually changes behavior, not just documents it.

That is the legislative conversation our state associations should be driving right now. Not disclosure. Mandate.

The industry solution: Mandatory disclosure while we wait

Until federal or state law catches up — and it may take years — our industry has an obligation to implement its own minimum standard. And that standard should be this: every agent who takes a private listing must present the seller with a plain-language written disclosure document before the listing goes active.

This document should explain, in the simplest possible terms, what a private listing is. It should explain that by limiting buyer exposure, the seller may — and in many cases will — receive a lower sale price than a fully marketed property might achieve. It should confirm, in writing, with the seller’s signature, that this trade-off was explained and understood and that the seller is making a voluntary, informed choice.

Let me be direct about why I feel so strongly about this. If I am ever standing in front of a judge because a seller is claiming I recommended a private listing because it was financially advantageous to me or my brokerage — at the expense of my fiduciary duty to them — I want to hand that judge a signed document in plain English showing exactly what I disclosed, exactly what the seller agreed to, and exactly what they chose. That document is not just an ethical protection. It is a legal one. Always think anti-lawsuit — not because you plan to do anything wrong, but because documenting that you did everything right is the clearest possible proof of integrity.

I believe NAR should be pushing this standard aggressively to its members right now, regardless of what happens at the federal or state level. It costs nothing to implement. It protects sellers. It protects agents. And it begins to build the culture of transparency that this industry needs if it wants to stop defending itself in court.

A direct challenge to the portals

There is one more piece of this puzzle that is entirely within reach — and it does not require legislation, association action, or industry consensus. It just requires that Zillow, Realtor.com, Homes.com and the other major syndication platforms make a decision that is long overdue.

Remove days on market and price reduction history from public display. Do it now.

As I argued in the previous section, this data does not serve buyers. It does not help them evaluate whether a home is right for them or whether the price is fair. What it does is redirect their focus from the property to the seller’s vulnerability — training them to negotiate against anxiety rather than evaluate value. A buyer who is fixated on the fact that a home has been listed for 73 days or has had two price cuts is not thinking about whether that home is the right home for their family at the right price. They are thinking about how much they can take off the ask. That is not a good buying decision framework, and it is not information that serves their interests.

From a fiduciary standpoint, the argument is even more direct. A listing agent’s duty runs to the seller. A listing agent who knowingly allows data that weakens the seller’s negotiating position to be broadcast publicly — when no law requires it — is arguably working against the very client they were hired to serve. There is no federal law requiring this information to be public. There is no state law requiring it either. The portals made a choice to display it. They can make a different choice.

Here is the point I want every anti-private listing advocate to know how this helps your argument: if the portals remove days on market and price history from public view, they eliminate one of the most compelling practical arguments for keeping a listing private in the first place. The seller who wants to avoid the stigma of a stale listing would have one less reason to go private. That does not resolve the entire debate — but it removes a significant emotional driver from it. The portals have an opportunity to do something genuinely constructive for the market. I hope they take it.

The bottom line

I support private listings because I believe in seller autonomy, because I respect brokerages that have built legitimate business models around them and because I know that no association or MLS has the legal or moral authority to override a homeowner’s right to choose how they sell their property. Any attempt to do so collectively risks exactly the kind of antitrust exposure our industry cannot survive again.

But I am also clear-eyed about what a world of unchecked private listings would cost us. It would fragment our inventory so much it could do permanent damage to our industry. It would erode the MLS infrastructure that is the envy of the developed world. It would leave buyers navigating a maze instead of a marketplace. And it would, in many cases, quietly cost the very sellers it claims to serve.

We can hold both of those truths. In fact, we have to. The path forward is not choosing a side in this debate — it is building a framework that respects property rights, mandates transparency, preserves market infrastructure, and gives every homeowner in America the information they need to make the best decision for themselves.

That is what this industry owes the public. And it is long past time we delivered it.

Darryl Davis, CSP, is a nationally recognized real estate speaker, coach, and author of three McGraw-Hill books. He has trained over 600,000 real estate professionals worldwide and leads the POWER AGENT® Coaching Program. Learn more at darrylspeaks.com.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.

To contact the editor responsible for this piece: tracey@hwmedia.com