When the National Association of Realtors settled the commission lawsuits, the ripple effects were immediate. One of the most significant changes prohibited advertising buyer agent commissions on the MLS, disrupting long-standing industry norms and sending shockwaves through the real estate world.

Now that we are roughly a year and a half removed from the settlement, the question is no longer “What will happen?”

The question you should be asking now is “What is actually happening?”

The answer may surprise you.

What we’re seeing is not lower commissions, but higher confusion, weaker transparency, and new forms of friction that the settlement and the resulting rule changes never intended to create.

Commissions Have Not Fallen. In Many Cases, They Have Risen.

A lot of it.

Every day, we receive calls from agents asking what commission the seller is offering. When we explain that the seller prefers to negotiate the commission as part of the overall offer rather than guarantee it upfront, agents often balk.

Some do not schedule tours.
Some even steer their clients elsewhere.

Steering is still 100% illegal, but when compensation becomes uncertain, behavior changes. That is just one of the unintended consequences of the settlement.

The New Normal Is More Complicated Than the Old One

Real estate transactions have always involved a certain level of complexity. Ironically, the post-settlement environment may be introducing even more uncertainty for both agents and consumers.

Here is what we are consistently communicating to agents when this comes up:

First, the seller has not authorized us to disclose a guaranteed commission because they want to preserve negotiation flexibility.

Second, the seller is happy to pay a commission if the other terms of the offer allow for it.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of our sellers, easily 95+ percent, actually do pay what most agents would consider a “full commission” (this is a whole other blog post), typically somewhere between 2.5 percent and 3 percent.

So what exactly is driving the concern?

It comes down to one word: guarantee.

Sellers are not inherently opposed to paying buyer agents. They simply do not want to be locked into paying a commission regardless of the strength of the offer.

If a buyer submits an offer that comes in anywhere near the list price with generally reasonable terms, sellers rarely hesitate to compensate the buyer’s agent. But if the offer is aggressive, full of concessions, or significantly below asking, sellers want the flexibility to negotiate on every component of the offer, including commission, to craft a deal that works for everyone.

From their perspective, that is not unreasonable. It is just smart negotiation.

Why Buyer Agreements Haven’t Eliminated Compensation Uncertainty

One of the most significant changes resulting from the settlement was that the National Association of Realtors required buyer agents to enter into formal buyer representation agreements before touring homes. On paper, this should create more clarity. Compensation is agreed upon and guaranteed by the buyer in advance, theoretically eliminating any uncertainty about how much buyer agents will get paid.

But the reality on the ground tells a completely different story.

Yes, the agreement states the buyer is responsible for paying the agent a specific commission. However, most buyers simply do not have the extra cash available. After covering a down payment, closing costs, inspections, and moving expenses, the majority of buyers can’t afford an additional 2.5 to 3 percent on top of all that to compensate their agent as well.

So while the contract may say the buyer is responsible, everyone involved understands what typically happens next. The agent looks to the seller to fulfill that obligation for the buyer through the transaction.

That is why agents are consistently calling listing brokers to ask about their seller’s commission offering. When we bring up to them that they already have an agreement in place, the response we receive is usually some version of the same reality check: the buyer does not have the money, so the commission has to come from the deal.

If the seller is unwilling to guarantee it upfront, the transaction becomes more uncertain and less attractive. Sometimes the buyer moves on. Other times, this is where steering begins to creep into the equation as a form of reflexive self-protection for the agent’s livelihood.

This raises an important question. Are buyers even aware that this is happening? Are they being told that a home they may want is being skipped because the compensation is uncertain? Or are they simply being directed toward properties where payment is more predictable?

From the listing side, there is really no practical way for us to know.

I do believe that most agents are not acting maliciously. They are rightfully protecting their own income and their families. That is totally understandable. But it highlights a structural tension the industry has not fully addressed in the settlement.

Buyer Agents Absolutely Deserve to Be Paid

Let’s acknowledge something that often gets lost in this whole conversation. Buyer agents do work incredibly hard and deserve to be compensated for that hard work.

They spend most nights and weekends away from their family showing homes.
They drive countless miles to open doors for their clients.
They regularly take on clients who never end up purchasing a home with them.
They assume all the risk with no guaranteed paycheck in the end.

Consumers can sometimes see dozens of homes with a buyer’s agent that never turn into transactions, but that inefficiency is precisely why commissions exist at their current levels.

Even when they do get paid, the behind-the-scenes costs of paying broker splits, lead fees, desk fees, gas money, taxes, etc., result in the actual take-home pay being a fraction of that “big check” you see them receive at the closing table.

Until something comes along that meaningfully reduces that wasted effort, the cost structure of the industry will continue to reflect it.

Buyer agents deserve clarity around how they will be paid. But sellers deserve flexibility too. The challenge is creating a system that supports both needs at the same time.

The Settlement Solved One Problem but Created Another

Before the lawsuits, many sellers felt forced into offering an upfront and guaranteed commission percentage simply because it was visible directly in the MLS structure. The frustration was not always about paying agents. It was about losing that negotiating power.

The settlement attempted to fix that by removing advertised commissions altogether.

But markets are complex systems. When you pull one lever, others move.

What we are seeing now is an information vacuum, and markets do not function well without clear information.

When agents lack compensation visibility, they wind up avoiding any uncertainty altogether. That can influence which homes buyers see, whether intentionally or subconsciously. That is not a healthier market. It is simply a less transparent one.

A Practical Solution: Advertise but Do Not Guarantee

There is a middle ground that I think could restore clarity agent are certainly craving without returning to the things that triggered these lawsuits in the first place.

Allow sellers to advertise a commission, but do not guarantee it.

No arbitration between brokers.
No fixed compensation for agents.
No mandatory payout at closing.

Just allow for the seller to advertise a commission amount that serves as a starting point, with final terms negotiated in the purchase contract.

This approach would signal to buyer agents that the seller is ready, willing, and able to contribute toward their compensation while preserving the seller’s ability to negotiate on all terms based on the offer itself.

This would reduce steering incentives, increase transparency for consumers, and stay aligned with the spirit of avoiding price fixing.

I’ll be honest, many of our more sophisticated sellers, including investors, builders, and contractors, actually want to promote buyer agent compensation and other things like offering bonuses to buyer agents because they recognize the value strong agents bring to a transaction.

Right now, the rules limit that signaling, and the market is less efficient because of it.

The Bigger Risk Few Are Talking About: What Happens When The Market Shifts?

Here is the strategic move many people are missing when I see discussions on this topic.

The current rules have largely existed during a “buyer’s market” where buyer agents have the leverage and can push for compensation to be paid by the seller.

But what happens when the market flips? What happens when every home has multiple offers and buyers have to compete among themselves?

In that environment, buyer agents will have to be very careful about requesting compensation or risk weakening their client’s offer. As we mentioned before, buyers often cannot afford to pay their agent out of pocket after covering a down payment and closing costs, and raising the purchase price to roll in compensation is not always viable, especially if it causes the home not to appraise.

That scenario will leave buyer agents squeezed between economics and competitiveness, and it could become one of the next major friction points in the industry in the coming years as the market turns.

Where We Go From Here

To be fair, the National Association of Realtors faced enormous pressure and financial exposure. Overcorrections are common after massive legal settlements.

But every policy has downstream effects, many of which only become visible with time.

Eighteen months in, we are starting to see them: increased confusion, compensation uncertainty, potential steering behavior, and negotiation friction.

The goal should never be to defend the old system blindly, but it also should not be to ignore emerging problems simply because the change was well-intentioned.

Real estate works best when incentives are aligned, and information is clear.

Buyer agents need confidence that they will be paid.
Sellers need the freedom to negotiate.
Consumers need transparency.

Allowing advertised but negotiable commissions may just be the mechanism that balances all three at the same time.

Because at the end of the day, a system without clarity does not eliminate bias. It simply pushes it underground.

I believe that the industry as a whole would function far better in the sunlight.