NAR Lawsuit & Legal Changes: What Real‑Estate Brokers Should Expect by 2026

Introduction

The mid‑2020s have brought major legal upheavals in U.S. real estate. A string of antitrust lawsuits alleging that real‑estate brokers conspired to keep commissions artificially high culminated in a Burnett v. National Association of REALTORS® settlement in March 2024. At the same time, federal Fair Housing regulations and state‑level laws on broker fees, tenant rights and rent disclosure are shifting. Brokers operating in 2026 will therefore need to adapt their business practices to comply with a much more transparent and consumer‑focused legal landscape. This article summarizes the key changes and explores their implications for brokers in 2026 and beyond.

NAR Settlement and Commission Rules

On March 15 2024, the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) reached a proposed settlement with plaintiffs in a series of commission lawsuitsnar.realtor. The court‑approved settlement ends litigation regarding alleged collusion on broker commissions but introduces significant practice changes effective 17 August 2024. Key provisions include:

• Mandatory written buyer‑broker agreements – Realtors who use Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) must enter into written agreements with buyers before touring a homenar.realtor. The agreement must conspicuously disclose the amount or rate of compensation and make clear that fees are negotiable.

• Objective, capped compensation – compensation must be objective (flat fee, specific percentage or hourly rate) and cannot be open‑endednar.realtor. Agents are prohibited from receiving payments above the agreed amountnar.realtor.

• Commission offers removed from the MLS – offers of compensation to buyer agents can no longer be posted in the MLSnar.realtor. Sellers may still offer concessions or pay buyer‑broker fees off the MLS.

• Emphasis on negotiability – the agreement must state clearly that broker fees are fully negotiable and not set by lawnar.realtor.

These changes mean that by 2026 brokers must adapt to a free‑market approach to commission. Transparent written agreements will likely increase consumer awareness of what services are being provided and how much they cost, pressuring brokers to articulate their value proposition. Brokerages may experiment with fee‑for‑service models, flat‑fee packages and hourly consulting to remain competitive. MLS platforms will focus more on property information than on fee structures, and buyer‑broker compensation discussions will increasingly happen directly between agents and clients.

The settlement has broader implications beyond commissions. Plaintiffs’ attorneys continue to monitor compliance and may challenge MLSs or brokerages that deviate from the rules  mehiganlaw.com. Brokers should therefore maintain meticulous documentation of agreements and compensation to avoid future litigation. Additionally, the settlement may embolden state legislatures to enact their own broker‑fee laws—Massachusetts has already done so—and other jurisdictions may follow.

Fair Housing Compliance: The 2025 AFFH Rule Change

Compliance with the federal Fair Housing Act remains a core obligation for brokers. In March 2025, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published an interim final rule revising the regulations governing the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) mandate. The Federal Register explains that the new rule returns to the pre‑1994 understanding of AFFH certification: a general commitment by funding recipients to take active steps to promote fair housingfederalregister.gov. Under the rule, a grantee’s certification is deemed sufficient if it took any action during the relevant period that is rationally related to fair housingfederalregister.gov. The rule does not require jurisdictions to conduct Analyses of Impediments or other extensive planningfederalregister.gov.

Advocacy groups note that the interim final rule eliminates the structured planning and data‑driven tools that helped communities identify discrimination and align public investments with fair‑housing goals. PolicyLink observes that the rule weakens the tools available to jurisdictions by removing key planning mechanisms and allowing self‑certification with minimal accountabilitypolicylink.org. Although jurisdictions must still certify that they are affirmatively furthering fair housing, they are no longer required to provide detailed reports or justificationspolicylink.org. This shift places greater emphasis on local control: states and cities may choose to implement their own robust planning processes to address segregation and inequalitypolicylink.org.

For brokers, the practical takeaway is two‑fold. First, the nondiscrimination mandates of the Fair Housing Act remain in place. Brokers must continue to provide equal service regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, familial status or other protected characteristics. Second, in a deregulated environment with fewer federal planning requirements, brokers and local associations can play a larger role in promoting fair housing through education, voluntary compliance programs, fair‑housing audits and community partnerships. Brokers should stay attuned to any local initiatives that go beyond federal minimums.rental property deals.

What Brokers Should Do Heading Into 2026

By 2026, brokers will operate under a patchwork of national and state‑specific laws that prioritize transparency, consumer protection and fairness. To succeed:

1. Adopt transparent buyer‑broker agreements. Use detailed written agreements that specify services and compensation, and ensure clients understand that commissions are negotiable.

2. Review compensation models. Explore flat‑fee, hourly or à‑la‑carte service packages. Evaluate the profitability of buyer representation in a world where seller‑paid commissions are no longer standard.

3. Invest in fair‑housing training. Even with simplified federal requirements, brokers must prevent discrimination in advertising, showings, tenant screening and digital marketing. Consider voluntary audits and partnerships with fair‑housing organizations.

4. Stay informed on state laws. Monitor legislation like Massachusetts’ broker‑fee law, Texas’ agency changes and California’s tenant‑protection laws. Update forms, disclosures and policies accordingly.

5. Prepare for funding volatility. Section 8 and ERA programs could shrink. Brokers managing rentals should diversify tenant screening, plan for potential payment gaps and maintain accurate documentation for any compensation claims.

The real‑estate industry is notoriously cyclical, but the current wave of legal reforms represents a structural shift toward consumer empowerment. Brokers who embrace transparency, invest in compliance and adapt their business models will be well positioned to thrive in 2026 and beyond.