In
a
post
on

LinkedIn,
Reffkin
wrote
that
if
a
seller’s
home
“sat
on
the
market,
lost
momentum,
or
sold
below
its
potential
because
[their]
agent
was
forced
to
comply
with
the
National
Association
of
Realtors
(NAR)
policy,
[they]
have
grounds
for
legal
action
against
NAR
and
the
MLS.”

“As
the
debate
around
Seller
Choice
continues,
Sellers
across
the
country
will
discover
that
what
they
thought
was
a
marketing
misstep
was
actually
the
result
of
a
NAR
policy
that
limited
their
options
and
worked
against
their
best
interests.
What
do
I
mean?”
Reffkin
wrote.
“Many
people
in
the
industry
don’t
know
that
NAR
recently
changed
their
definition
of
an
“Office
Exclusive”
in
order
to
restrict
Seller
Choice
and
prevent
Sellers
from
marketing
outside
the
MLS.”

In
late
March
2025,
when
NAR
announced
its

Multiple
Listing
Options
for
Sellers
(MLOS)
policy,
Reffkin
claims
that
the
trade
group
revised
its
definition
of
an
office
exclusive
from
“a
listing
where
the
seller
has
specified
that
the
listing
not
be
submitted
to
the
MLS,”
to
“a
listing
where
the
seller
has
directed
that
their
property
not
be
disseminated
through
the
MLS
and
not
be
publicly
marketed.” 

When
announcing
the
MLOS
policy,
NAR
noted
that
it
had
no
impact
on
its

Clear
Cooperation
Policy
(CCP),
which
includes
a
carve
out
for
office
exclusives.
According
to
CCP,
which
was
adopted
in
2019,
prior
to
when
Compass
has
alleged
NAR
changed
its
policy,
a
seller
could
refuse
to
permit
their
listing
agent
from
disseminating
their
listing
via
MLS,
however,
the
policy
notes
that
if
the
listing
is
publicly
marketed
it
must
be
input
into
the
MLS,
no
longer
making
it
an
office
exclusive. 

Additionally,
NAR
MLS
Policy
Handbooks
published
prior
to
2025
refer
to
office
exclusives
as
“exempt
listings”
under
CCP,
noting
that
once
an
exempt
listing
is
publicly
marketed,
the
broker
must
distribute
it
via
the
MLS
within
24
hours. 

In
his
post,
Reffkin
cites
a
1983

Federal
Trade
Commission
(FTC)

report
on
MLS
rules,
arguing
that
office
exclusives
were
identified
by
the
FTC
as
necessary
for
preserving
seller
choice. 

“On
its
face
,
requiring
that
MLS
members
submit
all
of
their
listings
of
a
designated
type
restricts
the
competitive
freedom
of
the
broker-members.
Alternative
methods
of
selling
houses
are
effectively
foreclosed,”
the
FTC
report,
cited
by
Reffkin,
states. 

The
report
adds
that
the
mandatory
submission
of
listings
could
result
in
“competitive
injury.”

Reffkin
is
arguing
that
this
alleged
change
to
the
office
exclusive
policy
has
opened
the
door
for
homeowners,
agents
and
brokers
impacted
by
the
alleged
change
to
legally
challenge
NAR. 

NAR
did
not
wish
to
comment
on
Reffkin’s
post
or
allegations.

Compass
has
already
targeted
Northwest
MLS
and
Zillow

Both

Northwest
MLS
(NWMLS),
whose
listing
policy
does
not
allow
for
office
exclusives,
and

Zillow,
whose
listing
access
standards
ban
listings
that
are
publicly
marketed
for
more
than
24
hours
before
they
are
entered
into
the
MLS,
were
previously
the
recipients
of
Reffkin’s
social
media
ire.
He
and
his
firm
have
also

previously
pressured
MLSs
to
repeal
CCP,
arguing,
similarly
to
this
post
about
NAR,
that
if
they
do
not,
they
will
face
legal
exposure. 

So
far,
both

Zillow
and

NWMLS
have
become
defendants
in
lawsuits
filed
by
Compass.
With
this
post,
perhaps
NAR
will
be
next.