New York’s Proposed Private Listing Law: A Transparency Bill Filled With Unanswered Questions

New York may soon enact a sweeping new law governing how residential real estate listings are marketed.

The proposed Fair and Transparent Real Estate Listings Act, Assembly Bill A.10679-B, with companion Senate Bill S.10274, has passed both houses of the New York State Legislature and awaits action by Governor Kathy Hochul.

The legislation is aimed at private listing networks, systems in which properties are marketed within one brokerage, franchise, MLS or selected group of real estate licensees instead of being exposed to the broader public marketplace. Its stated purpose is reasonable. Sellers should understand when their property is being withheld from public view. Buyers should have a fair opportunity to learn which properties are available. A brokerage should not place its interest in controlling listings and buyer leads ahead of its fiduciary duty to the seller.

But good intentions do not automatically produce good legislation. A close reading of this bill reveals circular definitions, vague marketing standards, an unusually broad definition of a multiple listing service and a disclosure form that appears to create a nearly all-or-nothing choice between public marketing and brokerage-only secrecy.

What the Proposed Law Would Do

Under the legislation, a listing agent representing a seller or landlord would generally be required to share property information with licensees representing prospective buyers or tenants, respond to their inquiries, make the property available for showings and publicly advertise or market it. If the property is also placed on a private or limited-access channel, the public marketing would generally have to begin at the same time.

Public marketing could occur through an MLS that distributes listings for display on participating brokers’ public-facing websites or through one or more qualifying public internet platforms. A seller or landlord could choose not to have the property publicly marketed, but only after signing the state-mandated disclosure and opt-out form.

The bill states that it would take effect 180 days after becoming law. During that period, the Department of State would be expected to publish the required form and could issue regulations governing implementation.

Readers should review the bill itself rather than relying solely on industry summaries or commentary. The proposed seller and landlord opt-out disclosure is written directly into the legislation under Section 5 of proposed Real Property Law §443-b. Because the bill has not yet become law, the New York Department of State has not published a separate official form.

A Disclosure That Is Not Particularly Neutral

The proposed form describes the possible risks of private marketing but says almost nothing about why a seller or landlord might legitimately choose it. An owner may have personal security concerns, be dealing with a divorce or illness, have vulnerable occupants or tenants in the property, hold a high-profile position or simply wish to prevent photographs of the home’s interior from being permanently distributed online.

There is nothing wrong with warning an owner that restricted exposure may reduce the number of potential buyers, offers or favorable terms. That is a real possibility and should be discussed. But an informed-consent document should fairly explain the available choices. This disclosure functions almost entirely as a state-written warning against private marketing and says virtually nothing about the possible benefits of privacy, security or control.

The form also appears to do more than simply authorize an owner to avoid public advertising. It says that the property shall not be marketed or distributed outside the listing brokerage through mass-marketing channels, including email blasts, listservs, newsletters and syndicated feeds.

That language suggests that a seller who signs the opt-out form may not be able to direct the listing agent to share the property confidentially with a limited group of experienced outside brokers who represent qualified buyers. The owner’s choices could become strangely binary: publicly market the property, or keep it almost entirely within the listing brokerage. That is not necessarily greater owner control.

Rob Hahn’s Analysis and the Drafting Problems

Several of the concerns examined in this article were raised by real estate industry strategist Rob Hahn in the New York section of his July 9, 2026 premium article, “There Is Something NAR Can Do for the MLS….” Hahn’s New York discussion is part of a broader analysis of state laws intended to discourage private listings and their potential effects on multiple listing services.

Hahn argues that the New York bill may harm rather than strengthen the traditional MLS system. His analysis focuses on the circular definition of public marketing, the absence of minimum listing-content requirements, the possibility of registration-gated websites and the bill’s exceptionally broad definition of a multiple listing service.

His analysis is industry commentary rather than an official legal interpretation, but the questions he raises are difficult to dismiss.

The bill defines “publicly advertise or market” by saying that it means to advertise, list or otherwise make information about a property available on a qualifying publication, platform or website. In practical terms, it defines advertising by using the word “advertise.” That does not tell brokers exactly what conduct qualifies.

The legislation does not establish meaningful minimum listing content. It does not clearly require a complete address, asking price, interior photographs, property characteristics, showing instructions or even a meaningful description. A brokerage might arguably comply by posting one exterior photograph, a general location and the words “price available upon request.” The property would technically appear online, but the public would receive very little useful information.

The bill therefore attempts to regulate distribution without adequately regulating content. That creates an obvious loophole.

Another drafting problem appears in the phrase “at least one other publication, platform, or website.” Other than what? The wording could be interpreted to mean that the property must appear on one platform in addition to whichever system the brokerage is already using. Under that reading, the listing might have to appear on at least two public platforms. But the statute does not clearly identify the first platform to which “other” refers.

The MLS Question

The final bill allows public marketing through one or more multiple listing services when the listings are distributed and displayed through MLS participants’ public-facing websites. That language appears intended to recognize ordinary MLS syndication.

Yet the bill’s definition of public marketing also refers to platforms that do not require payment and are broadly accessible to the general public. Traditional professional MLS databases generally require participation and payment of fees. Consumers cannot log into the professional MLS database and see its complete contents. They see selected information only after it has been distributed to broker websites and public portals.

The professional MLS database itself may not be publicly accessible, while the websites receiving and displaying some of its data are accessible.

Whether that arrangement satisfies every portion of the proposed law may ultimately require clarification from the Department of State or the courts.

The legislation also defines a multiple listing service as “a database that cooperating licensees use and maintain to share information about residential property listings.” That definition is remarkably broad.

It does not require a minimum number of participants, defined geographic coverage, standardized data fields, cooperation rules, professional staffing, enforcement procedures or any particular ownership structure. Under a literal reading, two cooperating brokers could create a database and use it to exchange residential listings. A much larger group of brokers could create a separate database specializing in luxury properties and charge substantial participation fees. Both might claim to satisfy the statutory definition of an MLS.

The law is intended to weaken closed private networks, yet its definition may provide those same networks with a route to reorganize themselves and claim MLS status. That is not a minor drafting problem. It reaches directly into the structure and value of the existing MLS system.

Private networks may also be able to change their architecture without changing their practical effect. The statute says consumers cannot be required to pay or work with the listing brokerage merely to view the information. It does not clearly prohibit a free registration requirement, account creation, collection of a name and email address or use of a username and password.

A brokerage could potentially place listings behind a free registration wall and argue that anyone may obtain access. The site would technically be open to the public while the brokerage continued collecting consumer identities and controlling the experience.

Access, Representation and Enforcement

The bill repeatedly refers to licensed brokers and salespersons “representing prospective buyers.” That wording may allow a listing brokerage to ask whether the inquiring licensee actually represents a prospective buyer or tenant.

Could a listing agent require evidence of a written buyer-representation agreement? Could the agent require identification of the buyer? For an unusually valuable property, could the listing agent ask for financial information demonstrating that the consumer is genuinely qualified?

Some verification may be reasonable, particularly for an occupied, high-value or security-sensitive property. But the legislation does not establish a uniform standard. One brokerage may accept a verbal statement. Another may demand a signed agreement. A third may request financial documentation. A law intended to open property information could therefore create new gates around it.

The bill also requires listing agents to respond to inquiries, share property information and make the property available for showings. Owners would not be required to conduct open houses or permit showings that violate health, safety or security rights, but the legislation does not provide detailed standards for ordinary showing restrictions.

An owner should retain the right to establish reasonable requirements concerning notice, identification, mortgage qualification, proof of funds and access to an occupied property. At the same time, a brokerage should not be able to claim that a property is publicly available while making it nearly impossible for outside agents to obtain information or arrange a showing.

The legislation repeatedly refers to residential property offered for sale or lease, including sellers, landlords, buyers and tenants. Its application to particular property types, mixed-use buildings, larger rental properties and vacant land may require clarification through Department of State regulations, legal interpretation or future enforcement. Brokers and property owners should not assume that the law applies only to traditional one-to-four-family sales.

These uncertainties matter because the bill would be enforced by the New York Department of State as part of the state’s real estate licensing law. It would increase the maximum fine for certain licensing violations from $2,000 to $5,000, while leaving the Department’s authority to reprimand, suspend or revoke a real estate license intact. Half of the penalties collected under the proposed provisions would be directed to the state’s anti-discrimination in housing fund.

This would therefore be much more than another MLS rule. An MLS can discipline a participant under its membership or participation agreement. The Department of State can place a licensee’s ability to practice real estate in jeopardy.

The bill does include an affirmative defense for a licensee who acted in good faith in attempting to fulfill the statutory duties, unless the licensee made a false, deceptive or misleading representation. But a good-faith defense is raised after a violation has been alleged. It does not cure vague statutory language or eliminate the cost and disruption of defending a disciplinary complaint.

A Defensible Goal, but Does the Bill Deliver?

Private listing systems can create genuine consumer problems. A brokerage may encourage sellers to withhold listings because doing so generates buyer leads, increases the possibility of representing both sides, keeps competing brokers away from the listing and strengthens the brokerage’s claim to possess exclusive inventory.

Those incentives may conflict with the listing agent’s fiduciary duties. A seller should not be placed into a restricted network merely because restricted distribution benefits the brokerage. The seller should understand that reduced exposure may mean fewer buyers, fewer offers and less reliable price discovery.

Public access may also support fair housing by reducing the chance that available properties circulate primarily through closed professional, business or social relationships. These are legitimate concerns.

The problem is not the principle that property owners should make informed decisions. The problem is whether this particular legislation clearly accomplishes that goal.

The bill defines advertising by referring to advertising, does not establish meaningful minimum listing content, uses the unexplained phrase “one other” platform, defines an MLS as virtually any database used by cooperating licensees, may permit registration walls controlled by the listing brokerage, does not explain how a licensee proves representation of a prospective buyer and may prohibit private interbroker marketing even when specifically requested by the owner.

It also provides a disclosure that lists nearly every possible disadvantage of private marketing while saying almost nothing about legitimate reasons for privacy. That is a great deal of uncertainty to place inside a statute carrying fines and possible license discipline.

The owner controls the property. The broker owes fiduciary duties to the client. The owner should receive an honest explanation of the available marketing choices, their advantages, their risks and any conflict of interest affecting the broker’s recommendation.

A brokerage should not quietly restrict exposure for its own economic advantage. But the state should also hesitate before deciding that only one marketing method is legitimate. Some owners will benefit from maximum exposure. Others may knowingly place privacy, security or control above maximum exposure. A carefully written law should protect both decisions.

What Happens Next?

Passage by the Senate and Assembly does not immediately begin the Governor’s constitutional review period. That clock begins only when the bill is formally presented or delivered to the Governor.

New York bills passed near the end of the legislative session are often delivered to the Governor in groups over the following months, so decisions on bills passed during the spring or early summer may continue through December.

If a bill is presented while the Legislature remains able to receive a veto, the Governor generally has 10 days, excluding Sundays, to sign or veto it. If no action is taken during that period, the bill becomes law without a signature.

When legislative adjournment prevents the Governor from returning the bill, a different rule applies. The Governor generally has 30 days to approve it. In that situation, taking no action does not allow the bill to become law. The bill dies unless the Governor affirmatively signs it.

As of July 11, 2026, the official legislative history for A.10679-B does not show that it has been formally delivered to Governor Hochul. The constitutional review period therefore does not appear to have started.

If the bill becomes law, its provisions would take effect 180 days later. Brokers should then watch closely for Department of State guidance concerning minimum public-listing content, website registration requirements, MLS syndication, proof of buyer or tenant representation, showing requirements, private interbroker communications, brokerage-only listings, property coverage and record-retention requirements.

Until those questions are answered, the legislation may be best described as a map drawn in fog. Its destination is understandable. Its route is not.

Final Thoughts

The Fair and Transparent Real Estate Listings Act is presented as a consumer-protection measure, and parts of it may genuinely protect consumers. Property owners should know when their listings are being withheld from the marketplace. Buyers should not be excluded merely because they or their agent belong to the wrong brokerage or private network. Listing brokers should not manipulate exposure principally to capture buyer leads or both sides of a transaction.

But legislation must be judged by its language, not merely by its title. This bill may restrict some private listing practices while encouraging new websites, registration systems and databases designed to fit within its loosely drawn definitions.

It may weaken large private brokerage networks, or it may cause hundreds of smaller databases to claim MLS status. It may expand public access, or it may produce bare-bones advertisements that technically comply while revealing almost nothing.

New York is attempting to regulate a complex and rapidly changing part of the real estate marketplace.

Sources and Further Reading

• New York State Legislature: A.10679-B
  Official bill text, legislative history and voting record. The proposed seller and landlord opt-out disclosure is included directly in the legislation.
• New York State Assembly Legislative Record for A.10679-B
  Official Assembly bill text, sponsor memorandum and legislative actions.
• Rob Hahn, “There Is Something NAR Can Do for the MLS…,” July 9, 2026
  A broader analysis of state private-listing laws and their possible effects on multiple listing services. The article includes a substantial section titled “The Disaster in New York.” Premium content may require a subscription.
• New York State Senate: How a Bill Becomes Law
  Explanation of the Governor’s review period and the legislative process.