Last week, the state of Connecticut passed a law protecting homesellers who elect to market their homes off of Zillow, Realtor.com and the MLS. The law, which goes into effect later this year, is the latest development in a rising tide of recognition regarding a seller’s right to choose how their home is marketed to potential buyers.
Connecticut joins a group that already includes states like New York and Wisconsin, as well as a growing list of MLSs that are codifying sellers’ rights to control. This is a significant development on a debate that has been raging for years — and one that I’ve been fortunate enough to experience from all sides.
How homes reach buyers
Years ago, I worked for Trulia, where my job was to help bring listings to the open web. I am not opposed to broad consumer access; in fact, I played a hands-on role in helping expand it. But open access is not the same as forcing every seller into a singular, uniform path to marketing and selling their home.
Much of the current debate assumes that if a home is not immediately marketed everywhere, buyers are being shut out. That is rarely true.
Homes reach buyers in many ways, from yard signs and broker networks to social media and the MLS. These approaches are not mutually exclusive. In practice, limited early exposure is often the first phase of a broader plan.
In some cases, the rules themselves keep homes off the market. Sellers know that once a listing goes live, the clock starts: days on market accumulate, price-cut flags appear, and a home can look stale even when timing is the issue, not an absence of demand.
When sellers are penalized for listing too early, many will wait. Removing that artificial pressure brings more homes to market, not fewer.
That is why marketing strategy has traditionally been a decision made by the seller, with the counsel of their agent. Writing one required path does not make the market more open. It takes the homeowner’s choice and places it elsewhere.
The ‘essential’ role of the MLS
The MLS plays a different role, and it remains essential. Cooperation among professionals gives agents the information they need to serve clients well. But telling a seller when and how to market a home crosses a line.
That was never the MLS’s purpose, and today the rules vary widely by market, with some extreme cases resulting in penalties over yard signs or social posts, even when no one is trying to withhold a listing from buyers.
How those rules define “public” has broader consequences. The more “public” is treated as universal, unrestricted distribution, the more it favors a small number of dominant platforms.
Once a listing is guaranteed to flow through a particular channel, that channel no longer has to compete for the business. Over time, that drives up costs and reduces choice for brokers, agents and consumers.
The laws and policies recently being enacted are not strikes against an open market. Rather, they reflect a rising recognition that true equity comes not from forcing all sellers down the same narrow path, but by offering them the freedom to chart their own course to closing.
That choice is worth protecting.
Ginger Wilcox is the President of Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate.
