Other Broker Compensation: When sellers voluntarily offer to pay other brokers, they are paying for marketing, facilitation, and transportation services, not for representation, representation is only a byproduct of the law.
Restriction on Seller Advertising: 58(ii): NAR has unjustly stripped sellers of the right to efficiently market directly to other agents causing harm to both buyers and sellers.
Agency Agreement Requirement: 58(iv): NAR's new mandate for buyers to sign agency agreements before any services are provided is anti-competitive, collusive, and discriminatory.
NAR dues = $ 156
State Ass dues = $ 152
Local Ass dues = $ 175
MLS dues = $ 946
Total Annual Cost: $ 1,429
Total Monthly Cost $ 119
Annual Cost
Listing services only:
$240 per year*
Upcoming Additional Services include:
(listings, lockbox, showing service,
contract software, etc)
Est. Total Annual Cost = $ 480**
Est. Total Monthly Cost = $ 40**
What do you have to lose?
With mass adoption, we can shed the burden of NARs control and costs
Shed the NAR burden of Collusion and Anti-competition
NAR can focus on legislation
RELS will focus on bringing you the tools you want and need at a fair cost
* $240 is based on listing services only, once we are ready to migrate to providing lockboxes, showing service, and other needed software we will negotiate the best prices possible. Those who only want listing services will only have to pay for listing services going forward.
** We will lower costs with scale
It is not mandated by the State, it is only an agreement between NAR and the plaintiffs, it holds no legal standing unless you put your listings on a NAR MLS.
There is no legal mandate to follow NARs rules.
NAR's new rule 58(vi): Forces all people to sign a written agreement before showing them a home.
You will be discriminating against minorities and low-income people
if you refuse to show them a home even if they refuse to sign a contract to exclusively work with you.
If your compensation is not exactly the same for each and every person regardless of sales price or circumstance.
If you force them to sign your agreement, they can later claim coercion, and they would be right.
DO NOT follow rule 58(vi) of the settlement. If you force anybody to sign anything, you will get sued and probably lose. It is best to have potential clients who want to work with you exclusively to voluntarily sign an agency agreement after you have built report and a relationship. With NAR mandating written agreements prior to touring homes, buyers are coerced, agents and brokers will lose.
I. Enforcement of Paragraph 58(iv) Risks Discrimination Against Minorities and Low-Income Individuals by impacting Equal Access.
The mandatory requirement for all potential buyers to sign a written agreement before touring homes disproportionately affects minorities and low-income individuals who may be less familiar with, or more cautious about, signing legal agreements without adequate consultation. This requirement can act as a barrier to entry, effectively discriminating against these groups by denying them equal access to housing opportunities. The provision would effectively prevent showing unless a potential buyer had access to an attorney to review the agreement.
II. Enforcement of Paragraph 58(iv) The Risk of Coercion in Mandatory Written Agreements
By forcing potential buyers to sign an agreement before even viewing properties, NAR's rule potentially coerces consent. Buyers may feel pressured to sign agreements without fully understanding the implications or having the opportunity to negotiate terms, leading to claims of coercion which could invalidate the agreements under contract law principles.
Contract law requires that consent be given freely and voluntarily for an agreement to be valid. Coercion to sign an agreement under the conditions set forth by NAR could lead to these contracts being challenged and potentially deemed unenforceable.
NAR's new rule 58(ii): Specifically prevents Sellers from voluntarily advertising offers of compensation on the MLS or other platforms that consolidate data.
We believe it is counter to the best interest of the seller to prevent sellers from efficiently and effectively communicating any seller's desire to offer and advertise compensation to all other Brokers.
If the most efficient way to sell a home is to market the home to other brokers who have current clients looking for homes, then forbidding this act is to the detriment to the seller and a breach of fiduciary duty to your client.
We believe this rule would be unconstitutional if it were mandated by law, and a breach of fiduciary duty if instituted unilaterally by rule.
DO NOT follow rule 58(ii) of the settlement. If you agree and participate in a scheme to forbid sellers from voluntarily offering and advertising Seller-paid Other Broker Compensation (SOBC) you are participating in an anti-competitive arrangement that will harm your clients, thereby breaching your fiduciary duty and creating cause for another class action lawsuit against you.
I. Enforcement of Paragraph 58(ii) Restricts Market Efficiency & Imposes Anti-Competitive Restrictions
The efficient operation of the real estate market relies heavily on the ability of sellers to reach a broad audience of potential buyers, typically facilitated by buyer agents. By prohibiting sellers from advertising compensation to buyer agents, Paragraph 58(ii) restricts this reach, diminishing market efficiency and artificially limiting the pool of potential buyers. Such restrictions undermine the competitive process, which is designed to ensure that properties are sold at the highest price within the shortest possible time.
II. Enforcement of Paragraph 58(ii) Is a Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Sellers
Real estate agents are bound by fiduciary duties to act in the best financial interests of their clients—the sellers. By restricting the ability of these agents to advertise and negotiate the best possible compensation schemes openly, Paragraph 58(ii) limits agents' capacity to fulfill their fiduciary duties. This not only potentially lowers the sale price of properties but also extends the time on the market, contrary to the sellers' best interests.
Board Membership
Not-Required
We do believe NAR has played a positive role in legislative pursuits and has been a net positive, however, we don't think membership should be tied to your listing system, or required for RELS participation.
We will not collect dues for NAR, we will not consult with NAR, or any local real estate association.
We will only set rules around data integrity, advertising compliance and data usage. We will have one single mission, to provide a place for your listings to be seen by agents who have clients looking for a home.
Independence
Your company is less likely to be accused of collusion for advertising on our platform because we will not have a board of directors or rule committees made up of industry competitors.
We are only an advertising platform.
We do not make industry rules, we do not enforce industry rules, we allow anyone with a valid license to subscribe to our system.
NAR gives away your data for no benefit to you. Our goal will be to maximize the revenue to brokers from the sale and use of your data by fintech companies large and small. Our goal is to pass on 80% of net revenue from data sales back to the brokers to help reduce your costs.
By not being part of NAR or a local board, RELS is under no obligation or mandate; to regulate compensation, ethics, disputes or business activities.
We will only allow the seller to advertise seller-paid other-agent compensation. We will make it a searchable field. We will allow buyers the ability to search for listings that pay other-agents. So both buyers and sellers will have control over which listings they see.
Let us know if you have interest.