Senate hearing exposes split over banning ‘pocket’ real estate listings
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
SB 6,091 would require concurrent public marketing of listed residential property; supporters including Zillow, fair‑housing groups and many brokers said pocket listings undermine transparency and fair housing, while opponents argued the bill restricts homeowner choice and could put brokers at risk without an opt‑out or clearer safeguards.
The Senate Housing Committee received hours of testimony Jan. 23 on SB 6,091, a bill that would prevent brokers from marketing listed residential property to a limited or exclusive group unless the property is concurrently marketed to the general public.
Committee staff summarized the measure, saying it would prohibit a broker from marketing residential real estate to a limited or exclusive group unless the property is also marketed to the general public; violations could prompt disciplinary action by the Department of Licensing and enforcement through the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) and civil relief.
The bill's sponsor framed the proposal around fairness and competition. He argued private listing networks create a “two‑tiered system where insiders get to see and compete for real estate inventory earlier,” and said the measure preserves open market competition for all Washingtonians.
Supporters ranged from national portals and fair‑housing advocates to small brokers. Anna Boone of Zillow said the bill protects an “open, competitive real estate marketplace where consumers — not hidden networks — are in control of their home searches.” Adria Buchanan of the Fair Housing Center of Washington testified that pocket listings “reduce access, limit competition and shut people out,” and warned hidden inventory can reinforce discriminatory outcomes.
Housing groups including Washington Realtors, Habitat for Humanity and others also backed the bill. Ryan Donahue of Habitat urged passage to ensure equal access and reduce race and wealth‑based exclusion arising from hidden listings.
Opponents from large brokerages and some practicing brokers urged amendments. Brandy Huff of Compass said the bill risks stripping homeowners of autonomy and proposed an opt‑out language so a seller who requests private marketing in writing would be allowed that choice; she warned the bill could expose brokers to licensing discipline for following a client's request. Several brokers also said elderly or incapacitated sellers sometimes need quiet, broker‑led strategies that the bill's blanket rule would complicate.
The Attorney General's office, represented remotely, supported competitive markets but cautioned that using WLAD as the bill's primary enforcement vehicle may be imperfect because WLAD targets discrimination on immutable traits; the AG's office suggested considering a different enforcement mechanism.
Committee members asked staff to follow up about how federal fair‑housing requirements and WLAD interact with the bill and whether opt‑out language could be reconciled with anti‑discrimination enforcement. The committee closed public testimony and adjourned without taking a vote.