The headlines were confident. After a landmark legal settlement upended long-standing industry rules, many buyers and sellers expected a clear drop in commissions. A year in, the story is far more stubborn. The business practices at the heart of the settlement changed on paper, yet the money flows look familiar in practice. Buyer-side fees remain close to pre-settlement levels, and in many markets, sellers still agree to cover them to get deals done. The promise of cheaper real estate services has collided with old habits, cautious lenders, and a housing market that rewards anything that reduces friction. A transformation in how agents are paid may still come over time, but the immediate savings many consumers expected have not arrived. Recent reporting even finds the average buyer-agent take inching higher from last year’s mark.
To understand why, start with what actually changed. On November 26, 2024, a federal judge granted final approval to the settlement that reshaped compensation rules across Realtor-affiliated multiple listing services. That approval locked in two headline changes. First, offers of compensation to buyer agents can no longer appear on the MLS, which means the published listing data no longer advertises a preset split. Second, agents working with buyers must use written buyer agreements, so fees and services are spelled out before anyone starts touring homes. Those practice changes went live nationwide on August 17, 2024, even before final approval, to keep the rollout on a consistent timeline.
Those two steps mattered, but neither guaranteed cheaper transactions. Removing compensation fields from MLS listings curbed a powerful form of signaling, yet the settlement did not ban negotiation off the MLS. The National Association of Realtors explicitly told members that offers of compensation could continue privately, through conversations and contract terms outside the listing feed. The new rule aimed at transparency and competition, not a prohibition on seller-paid buyer representation. Requiring written buyer-broker agreements was meant to help buyers understand what they are paying for, and to create a moment to negotiate scope and price. That is real progress for clarity, but transparency alone does not force prices down where market conditions cut the other way.
The second piece most consumers never saw splashed on front pages. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac clarified that if a seller still chooses to pay a buyer’s agent, those fees are treated as common and customary costs in many markets. That treatment means the payment usually does not count against caps on seller help toward a buyer’s closing costs. In practical terms, mortgages remain compatible with the status quo. If a seller wants to cover the buyer-agent fee to broaden the pool of bidders or help a budget-constrained shopper, the loan rules accommodate that choice. As long as financing systems keep that door open, many sellers will keep using it when the market rewards speed and certainty.
Put those details in a slower, inventory-constrained housing market and the outcome becomes easier to predict. In many metros, sellers and listing agents still see buyer-agent pay as a lever that can smooth a transaction. If a seller refuses to fund that portion, a buyer may need to bring more cash to close or agree to a higher price to wrap fees into the mortgage with concessions. Either option adds friction. That is why, despite the rule changes, buyer-side fees have held near 2.4 percent on average, and in some markets agents are again insisting on a higher number as leverage has shifted back to buyers in select price bands. Early data from brokerage research showed buyer-agent commission averages of roughly 2.36 percent right after the rule change, climbing over subsequent quarters to about 2.43 percent by mid-2025. A year after the settlement, several analyses show little evidence of a broad structural decline.
If commissions on the buy side have not fallen, did the settlement accomplish anything? The answer is more nuanced than a simple yes or no. Several improvements are already visible. First, buyers have clearer, earlier conversations about representation. They sign agreements before touring, and many now see an itemized menu of services with explicit prices. That creates a baseline for negotiation that was easy to avoid in the old system. Second, uncoupling MLS data from compensation removes a coordinated public signal that arguably kept prices sticky. It is much harder to claim there is a universal “going rate” when listing fields no longer display the number. Third, more consumers and agents are trying alternative arrangements, including limited-scope service, flat-fee listing, and rebates where legal. Those models existed before, but the news cycle and paperwork changes have put them on more people’s radar.
Still, price stickiness has deep roots. Most buyers do not want to jeopardize a house they love by haggling aggressively over their agent’s pay at the eleventh hour. Most sellers do not want to reduce their buyer pool by refusing a customary concession that greases the wheels. Anchors hold, especially when a number has been repeated for decades. In this context, the persistence of something like a two to three percent buyer-side commission looks less like a cartel price and more like a social convention that remains functional for enough participants. Several industry sources and recent reporting say many agents continue to steer expectations toward familiar splits during off-MLS conversations, which blunts the intended effect of the rule changes on list-side transparency. The result is a noticeable change in forms and processes, but only a marginal change in what most people pay.
There is also a legal undertow that keeps the story in motion. Even as the class action saga reached a courtroom conclusion for the trade group, federal antitrust officials made clear that enforcement questions remain open. In filings around the time of final approval, the Department of Justice stressed that compliance with the settlement does not shield anyone from future action. The agency has continued to scrutinize industry practices, and courts have allowed that scrutiny to proceed. That posture means another round of policy or legal changes could emerge if regulators conclude that the current dynamic still depresses competition.
So where could real savings come from if not from a single court settlement? There are three channels to watch. The first is true negotiation on scope. The written buyer agreement is an opportunity to define exactly what you need. If you are an experienced buyer who only wants door access and contract review, that is a smaller job than soup-to-nuts guidance. The second is more competition among business models. Flat-fee listings, hourly consulting, and buyer rebates have gained visibility since the rules shifted, and consumer-protection groups have begun publishing step-by-step advice for using them. In forty-plus states, rebates or cash-back programs are permitted in some form, and several online platforms now make them easier to find. The third, as rates and inventory gradually normalize, is a market where neither side holds overwhelming leverage. In a healthier equilibrium, service providers may accept lower margins to win share rather than rely on tradition to defend price.
If you are buying this year, treat the buyer-broker agreement like a budget document, not just a form to sign. Ask what is included, what is optional, and how the fee will be handled at closing. If you need the fee wrapped into the transaction, confirm with your lender and make sure the agreement spells out whether the seller will be asked to contribute and what happens if the seller refuses. If the property is in a market where sellers continue to fund buyer-agent pay, it may be rational to accept that norm and push harder on price or repairs instead. If you have cash to cover representation directly, you gain bargaining power to ask for a lower fee or a rebate at closing. Either way, the decision should be explicit. The settlement created the opening for that conversation, and that alone can be worth thousands when handled early and firmly.
If you are selling, think in terms of net proceeds, not ideology about who should pay whom. In a slow micro-market or at a price point with many near-substitutes, offering a buyer-agent fee can widen your pool and shorten time to close, which may improve your net even if you cover the cost. In a hot micro-market or at a remodel-proof price point, you can test the waters without that concession, then add it if traffic or offers lag. The new rules do not require you to fund the other side’s representation, and they also do not forbid it. Use that flexibility as a dial. In parallel, interview agents who are willing to quote a listing-side fee that reflects your property’s complexity. A well prepared home with clean inspection history and abundant comps takes less time to bring to market than a distressed sale with title issues. Your price should reflect that difference.
For both sides, another path to savings is to think about services à la carte. If you are a confident buyer who already knows the neighborhood and has a pre-approval, you might ask for a contract-only package coupled with a smaller success fee. If you are a seller with marketing chops and a strong local network, you might hire a flat-fee listing service for exposure and purchase separate help for pricing strategy and negotiation. The optics of commissions have long disguised the work mix inside the fee. Once you break the job down into research, showings, negotiation, and coordination with lenders and title, you will often find that not all of it is valuable to you at the same level.
Where does this leave the original promise of the Realtor fees settlement? It did change the plumbing. MLSs no longer broadcast compensation. Buyers must confront representation and cost at the start of the relationship rather than the end. Regulators have an open lane to push further if evidence shows that real competition is still not reaching consumers. Yet the rules did not outlaw private negotiation, and mortgage systems kept the path open for seller-funded buyer representation. In that environment, costs will not move on rhetoric alone. They will move when buyers and sellers use the new paperwork to demand tailored service and when professionals respond with clear pricing that reflects actual effort rather than inherited custom. The early data show that this shift will take time rather than a single news cycle.
If you are looking for a simple takeaway, it is this. The settlement removed a powerful default and created a moment for negotiation, but it did not remove the incentive to keep paying for speed and certainty in a complex transaction. The more you treat your agent’s fee like any other line item, the more the new system will work for you. Use the buyer agreement to right-size the job. Ask your lender and your attorney how best to structure any seller help. Compare full service with limited scope and flat fees. If you approach compensation with the same rigor you bring to rate shopping and appraisal gaps, you will capture the savings the rules made possible, even if the average headline number has not fallen yet. And if enough consumers do that, the averages will follow.
Sources: Final settlement approval and practice-change dates; removal of compensation fields from MLS and buyer-broker agreement requirement; lender treatment of seller-paid buyer-agent fees; Redfin and industry data on buyer-side commission levels; ongoing DOJ scrutiny; and reporting on how agents and consumers are adapting.
WhatsApp
Instagram
Threads
