A bill that passed the Washington State Senate 49-0 on February 10, 2026, may be one of the most significant pieces of real estate industry legislation in years. Substitute Senate Bill 6091 prohibits real estate brokers from marketing a home exclusively to a limited group of buyers or brokers unless that property is concurrently marketed to the public and all other brokers. The only exception is when privacy is reasonably necessary to protect the health or safety of the owner or occupant.
For those of us who have spent years watching the private listing network debate unfold across the industry, this bill reads like a direct response to exactly the dynamics we have been tracking. Washington lawmakers looked at the evidence, heard from small brokers, fair housing advocates, consumer groups, and MLS professionals, and reached a conclusion that the MLS community has long understood when listings disappear behind proprietary walls, consumer transparency is reduced.
The MLS Has Always Been the Answer
The original purpose of the Multiple Listing Service was built on a deceptively simple idea: when brokers share listing information openly and cooperatively, sellers get more exposure, buyers get more choices, and practitioners make money. That idea has proven durable for decades.
What SSB 6091 essentially does is codify that principle into state law. It does not mandate how public marketing must occur. It does not require yard signs or open houses. It simply says that if a property is being marketed for sale, it must be marketed to everyone, not just the clients of one firm. That is the spirit of what every MLS in this country has been trying to protect.
The Supporter Argument
Supporters of the bill noted that private listing networks create a two-tiered system where well-connected insiders see and compete for inventory first, while first-time homebuyers, immigrants, and lower-wealth households are shut out before they ever have a chance to participate. They also note that private listings distort market data, which can weaken appraisal accuracy and undermine confidence in pricing and valuation. Both of those concerns sit squarely at the core of why MLSs exist.
As one supporter testified before the Senate Housing Committee, this is about the largest companies in the country wanting to capture both sides of the transaction by controlling which buyers see which listings and when. Private listing networks, when deployed at scale by large national firms, are not about protecting a seller’s privacy, they claim. They are a strategy for broker consolidation. They allow dominant firms to leverage their size to show listings to their own buyer clients first, reducing competition and increasing the likelihood of a double-sided commission.
A small independent broker testified in support of the bill with a simple point: “I cannot compete against a larger brokerage that operates a private listing network. That is the reality this legislation is trying to address”.
The Opponent Argument
Opponents of the bill argued that it strips homeowners of their right to control how their property is marketed. That is a reasonable concern worth taking seriously, and the bill does preserve a meaningful exception for health and safety circumstances. What it doesn’t do is allow an agent to comply with the wishes of a homeowner that simply does not want their home and their children’s bedrooms on the Internet for public consumption. While most consumers do want their home to be promoted wherever possible not everyone feels that way. The bill does not address this consumer segment.
What This Means for MLSs Watching from Other States
Washington State will not be the last market to consider a bill like this one. The dynamics that drove SSB 6091 forward are not unique to the Pacific Northwest, even though they may be more intensified because Zillow, one of the largest opponents to private listings is located there. It is also a market dominated by large independent brokerages, many of which oppose the practice of private listings.
MLS organizations should pay close attention to this legislation for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that when the MLS value proposition of cooperation and transparency is clearly communicated, policymakers understand and act on it. The testimony in support of this bill reads like a defense of everything the MLS stands for: transparency, equal access, accurate market data, and a level playing field for all participants regardless of which firm they work for.
Second, MLSs that have already developed thoughtful private listing network solutions of their own are in a strong position. There is a meaningful difference between an MLS-managed Private Listing Network, where all subscribers have access and listings are governed by clear, equitable rules, and a proprietary brokerage network designed to restrict access. MRED in Chicago has successfully offered a private listing network for several years. Read the Chicago Agent article to learn about the realities of an MLS-driven private listing network.
MLSs that want to find a way to provide private exposure-interested consumers they can build their own private listing tools that allow sellers to manage exposure on their own timeline, while ensuring those listings remain visible to all subscribers. This path is one that regulators and policymakers will likely support.
The Concurrent Marketing Standard Is the Right Standard
If Washington’s bill becomes law, it will reinforce something that the MLS community has known for a long time: the value of the MLS is not just in the technology or the database. It is in the rules that ensure everyone plays by the same standard with rare exception driven by consumer preference.
This legislation is still working its way through the process, but the 49-0 Senate vote sends a clear signal. The industry should take note.
My Biggest Worry
While I clearly understand how brokerages have become ingrained in their respective positions on proprietary private listing networks, I worry that the constant bickering and posturing about this topic can be the first step to ending broker cooperation for ALL listings. This bill articulates again just how important and impactful MLSs are in creating a transparent, collaborative method for brokers to work together to serve the best interest of their buyers and sellers. If the chasm continues to get larger between brokerages, I worry that the largest value of market collaboration may get destroyed in the process.
I hate to see our disagreements that are so emotional and aggressive that we invite government oversight into our industry. We have fought against government regulation of our industry FOREVER. Other industries are stymied by onerous government requirements. Regulations cost them millions of dollars and slow down opportunities.
I would rather see MLSs deliver collaborative private listing networks to provide privacy-seeking consumers a viable alternative without turning over the keys of control of our industry to legislators.
If you would like to discuss the potential for MLSs to offer their own Private Listing Network, we’re here to help
Fill out the attached form.
