The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is signaling that its work on real estate commission practices is far from finished. Even as the industry adjusts to sweeping legal settlements and rule changes, federal antitrust officials continue to monitor how agents are paid and whether long-standing compensation structures still limit competition.
The DOJ’s Antitrust Division has repeatedly emphasized that recent reforms do not close the book on potential violations. Instead, regulators appear focused on how new rules are implemented in practice and whether they truly give consumers more choice and transparency when buying or selling a home.
A post-settlement landscape under review
The real estate industry has been in transition since a series of high-profile commission lawsuits culminated in major settlements that upended traditional practices.
Among the most significant changes was the elimination of rules that effectively required sellers to offer compensation to buyer agents through multiple listing services. Commission offers were also removed from MLS displays, forcing compensation discussions into direct negotiations.
While these steps were designed to increase competition, the DOJ has made clear that compliance on paper is not enough. Federal officials are closely watching whether brokerages, trade groups, or local markets adopt new norms that replicate the old system in different ways. Any coordinated behavior that results in uniform fees or discourages negotiation could still raise antitrust concerns.
Focus on buyer-agent compensation
One of the DOJ’s central concerns remains buyer-agent commissions. Historically, buyers often believed their agent’s services were “free” because compensation was embedded in the transaction and paid by the seller. Antitrust enforcers argue that this structure dulled price competition and reduced incentives for buyers to negotiate fees.
Under the new framework, buyers are generally required to enter written agreements with their agents that spell out compensation. The DOJ is monitoring how these agreements are used, particularly whether buyers are meaningfully informed of their options or steered toward standard rates. Regulators are also paying attention to whether sellers or listing brokers exert indirect pressure to maintain traditional commission levels.
Trade groups still in the spotlight
Industry trade organizations remain a focal point of federal scrutiny. The DOJ has long argued that rules or guidance issued by trade groups can shape market behavior in ways that restrain competition, even if participation is technically voluntary.
Recent court filings and enforcement actions suggest the government is prepared to challenge policies that influence how commissions are set, advertised, or negotiated.
This posture reflects a broader antitrust philosophy that views industry-wide norms with skepticism, especially in markets where pricing has remained remarkably consistent over long periods. For real estate, where commission rates have historically clustered within narrow ranges, it is leading to the DOJ seeing continued risk of coordinated behavior.
Implications for agents and brokerages
For agents and brokerages, ongoing DOJ attention means heightened compliance risks. Firms are reassessing training materials, marketing practices, and internal policies to ensure they do not suggest fixed or recommended commission rates. Some brokerages are experimenting with flat fees, hourly billing, or tiered service models in an effort to demonstrate flexibility and competition.
The scrutiny also adds pressure to clearly document negotiations with clients. Transparent disclosures and individualized agreements are increasingly viewed as essential safeguards against allegations of anti-competitive conduct.
What it means for consumers
From the consumer perspective, the DOJ’s continued involvement could lead to more experimentation in how real estate services are priced. Buyers and sellers may see a wider range of fee structures and greater willingness among agents to negotiate. However, the transition has also introduced complexity, particularly for buyers unaccustomed to paying their agent directly.
Federal officials have framed these changes as a necessary adjustment period, arguing that short-term confusion is outweighed by the long-term benefits of a more competitive marketplace.
An open chapter in antitrust enforcement
The DOJ’s message to the real estate industry is clear: recent settlements represent a starting point, not a finish line. As new rules take hold, regulators will continue to evaluate whether competition is genuinely improving or merely taking a new form.
With housing affordability under pressure and transaction costs under scrutiny, agent commission practices are likely to remain a priority for antitrust enforcement. For now, the industry is operating under the watchful eye of a DOJ determined to ensure that reform leads to real change rather than cosmetic compliance.
