Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multiple Listing Service Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears competing views on bill to bar mandatory trade-association membership for MLS access
Summary
House Bill 2438 would prohibit requiring real estate licensees to join a trade association to participate in a multiple listing service (MLS). Proponents said mandatory membership and fees block new entrants and raise costs; MLS operators and realtor organizations opposed, saying the bill would harm consumer protections and local choice.
The House Committee on Housing and Homelessness heard extended testimony Feb. 5 on House Bill 2438, which would prohibit real estate brokers and agents from being required to join a trade association to obtain access to a multiple listing service (MLS).
Representative Dwayne Juncker, sponsor of the bill, told the committee that current practice forces licensees to pay multiple association dues and MLS fees to access the database brokers use to list and find properties. "New real estate professionals struggle to afford mandated trade association fees," he said, and allowing alternatives would reduce barriers to entry.
Multiple witnesses presented sharply contrasting views. Chris Barnett, a principal broker and owner of Realty Executives in Southern Oregon, testified in support and described the fees as a barrier for new licensees and a source of dissatisfaction that he said limited competition and slowed transactions. "Imagine trying to start a new career... only to find out that you are required to pay hefty fees to access the MLS, which is needed in order to provide the services your license allows you to provide," Barnett said.
Opponents included Rick Harris, chair of Willamette Estate Data Share (a cooperative MLS), and Jeremy Rogers of Oregon Realtors. They argued the bill would undermine local choice and consumer protections. Harris said MLSs provide aggregated market intelligence and services (including lockboxes, tax-service feeds and market analytics) funded by subscription; many MLSs are locally operated co-ops that set participation standards. "An MLS should have the right to require this higher standard of the members who use its service," Harris said. He and other opponents said the bill would prohibit one type of competitive model—realtor-affiliated MLSs—while leaving other models intact, which they described as anti-competitive because it removes local decision-making.
Rogers noted that MLS operators and local boards vary in structure; he said Oregon already has both realtor-affiliated and non-realtor MLSs and that the bill’s enforcement mechanism—deeming violations an unlawful trade practice—could expose small local MLS boards to large penalties. He told the committee that base dues for association operations are distinct from separate voluntary political-action contributions; those additional contributions, he said, are optional.
Committee members pressed both sides on funding models and legal precedents. Representative Frigula asked how MLS databases are funded; witnesses said MLSs typically use monthly subscription fees and that subscription and association dues are separate streams. Sponsor Juncker and supporters cited other states—California, Florida and Georgia—that have adopted similar restrictions on mandatory association membership for MLS access; opponents said the cases differ in legal basis and should not be read as identical precedents for Oregon.
The written record remained open for 48 hours. No final vote was taken at the Feb. 5 hearing.
Why it matters: MLS access is central to real-estate transactions. The bill would remove one model—requiring association membership for MLS participation—and potentially expand a licensee’s options for obtaining listing access. Supporters framed the bill as reducing barriers and costs; opponents said it would strip MLSs and local associations of tools to enforce professional and ethical standards that protect consumers.
