Are You Being Pressured to Sign a Co-Broke Agreement When You List Your Home?

In August 2024, following the landmark Sitzer/Burnett case and DOJ pressure, the industry underwent a major shift:

• Sellers are no longer required to offer compensation to buyer’s agents on the MLS
• Buyer agent commissions are now fully negotiable
• Buyers must sign written agreements with their agents before touring homes
• Compensation is now determined between the buyer and their agent not automatically the seller

This was supposed to create transparency, competition, and consumer choice.

And on paper it did.

Here’s where theory and reality diverge.

Despite these changes, many sellers today are still being told:

• “You should offer 2.5%–3% to a buyer’s agent”
• “If you don’t, agents won’t show your home”
• “This is just how the market works”

But let’s step back and ask the real question:

If buyers are now contractually obligated to pay their own agents… why are sellers still being asked to cover that cost?

Today, before a buyer even walks into your home, they are required (in most brokerages and under NAR policy) to sign a Buyer Representation Agreement.

That agreement clearly defines:

• Who pays the agent
• How much they are paid
• What services are provided

And here’s the key:

If a seller offers nothing, the buyer is still responsible for paying their agent through a fee, percentage, or negotiated structure.

So no your home will not “go unseen.”

Buyers are already financially committed to their representation

Not as much as you’d think.

While commissions are now technically negotiable, the data shows:

• Buyer agent commissions have barely moved, hovering around ~2.3%–2.5% even after the changes
• Many agents continue operating under traditional expectations and models

Why?

Because the business model of large brokerages hasn’t changed.

This is the part consumers rarely see.

Most traditional brokerages are built around an aggregate commission structure per transaction often targeting:

• Roughly 2.5%–3% per side
• A combined 5%–6% total commission model

Why does this matter?

Because without the buy side commission:

• The brokerage revenue model breaks
• Agent splits, office overhead, and franchise fees become harder to sustain
• Profit margins shrink dramatically

So what happens?

Pressure shifts to the seller.

“You need to offer compensation or your home won’t be shown.”

Reality:

• Buyers already have signed agreements
• Compensation is already defined before they see your home
• Your property is part of the marketplace not a gated system

The idea that agents will avoid showing homes that don’t offer compensation raises the very concerns the DOJ highlighted:

Steering buyers based on commission rather than the property itself.

As one of the top agents in Wisconsin, I’ve built a model that does not rely on co-broke agreements.

And here’s what I can tell you:

• Homes still get shown
• Buyers still come through the door
• Properties still sell

Because demand is driven by inventory, pricing, and exposure not commission incentives.

Before signing any agreement, ask your agent:

1. Is offering buyer agent compensation required?
2. What happens if I choose not to offer it?
3. Are buyers already obligated to pay their agents?
4. Is this recommendation based on my best interest or your brokerage model?

The 2024 changes were designed to empower consumers.

But the industry hasn’t fully caught up.

And in many cases, the old system is still being preserved just repackaged.

You, as the seller, now have a choice.

Not an obligation

This is one of the most important transitions in real estate in decades.

And like any industry shift, there’s a gap between:

• What’s legally true
• What’s being practiced
• And what consumers are being told

Your job isn’t to fund a system that no longer applies.

Your job is to make informed decisions that protect your equity

No. You are not required to offer compensation to a buyer’s agent. Since the 2024 changes, commission structures are negotiable, and sellers are no longer obligated to pay the buyer’s broker.

No. This is one of the biggest misconceptions in today’s market.

Buyers are required to sign agreements with their agents before touring homes. That means they have already agreed on how their agent will be paid regardless of what you offer as a seller.

Yes. In today’s market, buyers typically must sign a Buyer Representation Agreement before viewing homes. This agreement outlines how their agent will be compensated.

The buyer does based on the agreement they’ve signed with their agent.

In some cases, buyers may request that compensation be negotiated as part of the offer, but it is no longer automatically expected to come from the seller.

Because many traditional brokerages are still operating under older business models that rely on both sides of the commission to meet revenue targets.

This isn’t necessarily about what’s required it’s about what their business model depends on.

Not significantly.

While commissions are now negotiable, many markets are still seeing similar averages as before. The structure changed but the behavior in many cases has not.

Yes but it should be a strategic choice, not a default requirement.

In certain situations, offering compensation may:

• Attract more buyers
• Help facilitate negotiations
• Be used as a concession in an offer

But it should always be your decision, based on your goals.

Steering is when agents direct buyers toward or away from properties based on compensation rather than the property itself.

This practice has been a major concern of regulators and is one of the reasons for the 2024 changes. Sellers should work with agents who prioritize exposure and ethics over commission incentives

You should feel confident asking:

• Is buyer agent compensation required?
• What happens if I choose not to offer it?
• How will you ensure my home gets maximum exposure?
• Are your recommendations based on my goals or your brokerage model?

You have more control than ever before.

The industry is still adjusting, but the rules have changed. You are no longer locked into a system where you must fund both sides of the transaction.

This is about choice, not obligation.