In a six-month window between December 2025 and June 2026, three states enacted laws regulating private real estate listings, a fourth (New York) has passed its legislature and awaits signature, and two more states have legislation pending. The wave is producing two distinct regulatory models. Brokers operating in affected jurisdictions need to understand which model their state has adopted, what documentation each requires, and how the deliberation behind a seller's choice is recorded.
Updated June 4, 2026
The short version. Three states have enacted private listing laws — Wisconsin Act 69 (signed Dec 2025, effective Jan 1, 2027), Washington SB 6091 (signed Mar 16, 2026, effective June 11, 2026), and Connecticut SB 340 (signed May 27, 2026, effective Oct 1, 2026) — and New York S10274 passed the legislature in June 2026 and is pending Governor Hochul's signature. Illinois and Hawaii have legislation in progress. Washington uses a prohibition model — private marketing is barred except for safety. The other three states use an opt-out model — private marketing is permitted when the seller signs the state-required disclosure form. Either way, a defensible private-listing file includes the state-required form, a deliberation record documenting how the seller arrived at the choice, and the regional MLS's own paperwork. The Listing Strategy Decision Record is the deliberation record.
The table below summarizes the four enacted state laws and their key compliance dimensions. Click any state name for the dedicated deep-dive page covering that state's specific requirements, opt-out mechanics, MLS interaction, and how the LSDR satisfies each requirement.
| State | Bill | Effective | Model | Trigger | Opt-out path | Penalties |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wisconsin Signed |
Act 69 (Evers, Dec 2025) | January 1, 2027 | Opt-out | One business day after first private showing or marketing | Available with seller direction | WI Real Estate Examining Board enforcement |
|
Washington Signed · Imminent |
SB 6091 (Ferguson, Mar 16, 2026) | June 11, 2026 | Prohibition | Marketing to limited group without concurrent public marketing | None — only health/safety exception | Up to $500/violation; license suspension or revocation |
|
Connecticut Signed |
SB 340 (Lamont, May 27, 2026) | October 1, 2026 | Opt-out | First instance of public marketing | State-approved opt-out form + safety exception | Up to $5,000/violation; license suspension |
|
New York Pending |
S10274 (Fernandez) | 180 days after signing | Opt-out | One calendar day after listing agreement | In-bill opt-out form + Fair Housing acknowledgment | NY DOS enforcement; Fair Housing exposure |
The four enacted state laws cluster into two distinct regulatory approaches. Brokers operating in multiple states need to understand which model applies in each jurisdiction, because the operational implications differ substantially.
The dominant model. Private marketing is permitted, but only after the seller signs a state-required or state-prescribed disclosure form acknowledging the risks of restricted marketing. The form's content is either delegated to a state regulatory body (Connecticut's approach) or written directly into the legislation (New York's approach). The seller's signature on the form is the gating step.
Under this model, brokers can support a seller who has personal, business, or family reasons for private marketing — provided the seller has been substantively informed of the tradeoffs and has signed the state form acknowledging the disclosure. The model recognizes seller autonomy while requiring that the choice be informed rather than pro forma.
Washington's SB 6091 takes a different approach: private marketing to a limited group is prohibited outright. There is no opt-out path based on seller preference. The only exception is where public marketing would be reasonably likely to endanger the owner's or occupant's health or safety. A seller in Washington cannot simply choose to forgo public marketing for privacy or competitive reasons, regardless of how thoroughly they have been informed.
The practical consequence: brokers in Washington cannot offer restricted marketing as a service option to most sellers. The only path to private marketing is the safety exception, which requires documented evidence of a bona fide safety concern. Brokers who routinely invoke this exception across many listings can expect regulatory scrutiny.
In opt-out states, the broker's documentation burden is to demonstrate that the seller's choice to opt out was informed — that the seller understood the specific tradeoffs in their specific market and chose accordingly. The state-required form satisfies the procedural disclosure; the broker's deliberation record documents the substance.
In Washington's prohibition state, the broker's documentation burden is different but no less important: to demonstrate that the safety exception genuinely applied. This requires documenting the specific safety concern, the basis for the broker's reasonable belief, and the seller's affirmative invocation of the exception. The bar for invoking the safety exception is higher than the bar for an opt-out — there is no "informed seller preference" option, only a fact-based safety determination.
Wisconsin became the first state to enact a private-listing restriction. Act 69 is a broader real-estate reform package that includes provisions on listing-firm obligations, dual-agency disclosure, and inter-firm compensation — but the private-listing piece is its most-discussed element. The law requires listing firms to publicly market a property within one business day of any private showing or marketing to anyone outside the listing firm. The opt-out path exists where the seller provides written direction.
Wisconsin's structure differs from Connecticut and New York in that the trigger is the first private showing or marketing activity (not the listing agreement itself), and the one-business-day window is the operational standard. Brokers can hold a listing privately for one business day before public marketing is required — unless the seller signs the opt-out direction.
Wisconsin deep dive →Washington's SB 6091 is the toughest of the four enacted laws — and the only prohibition-model statute. The operative language: a broker may not market the sale or lease of residential real estate to a limited or exclusive group of prospective buyers or brokers, unless the real estate is concurrently marketed to the general public and all other brokers, except as reasonably necessary to protect the health or safety of the owner or occupant.
There is no opt-out option for personal preference. A seller who wants private marketing for privacy reasons, family reasons, or business reasons has no path under SB 6091 — only the safety exception applies. The exception is narrow: "reasonably necessary to protect the health or safety" is a fact-based determination, not a preference choice.
Penalties: each violation is treated as unprofessional conduct under state guidelines, carrying a fine of up to $500 per violation and the risk of license suspension or revocation through the Department of Licensing's adjudication process.
The effective date — June 11, 2026 — is one week from the date of this page. Washington brokers should already have a compliance posture in place; the law applies to listing activity from that date forward, regardless of when the listing agreement was signed.
Washington deep dive →Connecticut's SB 340 follows the opt-out model. Listing agents must publicly market 1-4 unit residential properties concurrently with or prior to any first instance of public marketing, unless the seller signs the state-approved Seller/Landlord Opt-Out of Real Estate Public Marketing form. The Connecticut Real Estate Commission is responsible for promulgating the standardized disclosure language for the opt-out form.
SB 340 includes both an opt-out path (signed form following standardized disclosure) and a separate safety exception (bona fide safety or privacy need where public marketing would be reasonably likely to endanger the seller's health or safety). The opt-out is the standard path; the safety exception is narrower and applies only to genuine cases.
Penalties reach $5,000 per violation or license suspension — the highest enacted-law dollar amount among the four states, though New York's Fair Housing exposure (discussed below) could compound substantially higher in Fair Housing-implicated cases.
Connecticut deep dive →New York's S10274, the "Fair and Transparent Real Estate Listings Act," follows the opt-out model with two notable distinctions from Connecticut. First, the boilerplate text of the disclosure-and-opt-out form is written directly into the bill itself rather than delegated to a regulatory body — which means the form's content is locked at the time of signing and not subject to subsequent regulatory revision. Second, the opt-out form requires the seller to acknowledge two things explicitly: that withholding the listing may reduce visibility and may result in a lower sales price, and that discrimination against any class protected under federal, state, or local Fair Housing law is prohibited.
The Fair Housing acknowledgment is the most substantive structural difference between New York's bill and Connecticut's enacted law. New York's legislative findings explicitly tie private listing networks to Fair Housing concerns, treating the opt-out form as a vehicle for ensuring the seller is on record acknowledging the Fair Housing constraint before opting out of public marketing.
The one-calendar-day trigger — public marketing required within one calendar day of the listing agreement — is also the strictest timing among the enacted-or-pending state laws. Brokers cannot hold a listing privately for any meaningful period without either public marketing or a signed opt-out.
New York deep dive →Beyond the four enacted laws, two additional states have private-listing legislation actively in progress as of June 2026:
Brokers in these states should monitor legislative progress closely. The pattern across the enacted states suggests Illinois and Hawaii laws, when enacted, will follow the opt-out structure with state-required disclosure forms.
Despite the differences between states, the compliance architecture for a defensible private-listing file is structurally similar across jurisdictions:
The three documents work together. The state form satisfies the procedural disclosure. The deliberation record proves the consent was informed. The MLS paperwork addresses the listing's handling within the MLS's own rules. Together, they constitute a defensible file. A regulator, a competing broker filing a complaint, or a later-aggrieved seller asking what happened gets the full picture from the three documents combined.
The LSDR is configured per-licensee at deployment time. The configuration captures the licensee's brokerage identity, the regional MLS data, the state-specific consent form references, the state-specific practice statements, and any state-specific timing language. A brokerage operating across multiple state jurisdictions — for example, a tri-state firm in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey — maintains separate state-specific configurations. The underlying deliberation structure (priority ranking, comparison table, tension surfacing, signed artifact with build fingerprint) stays the same; the specific content adapts to each state's regulatory framework. When state laws change or new state laws take effect, configured LSDRs can be regenerated against updated state-specific data without rebuilding the underlying tool.
Brokerages with offices in multiple regulated states face the most complex compliance landscape. A few specific considerations:
The operational complexity of multi-state compliance is a meaningful argument for centralizing the deliberation-record component of the file in a single configurable tool. State-specific MLS forms vary by jurisdiction and cannot be standardized. State opt-out forms vary by jurisdiction and cannot be standardized. But the deliberation record — what the seller was told, what they ranked, what tensions surfaced, what reasoning supported their choice — can use a single underlying structure with state-specific configuration.
The four-state wave between December 2025 and June 2026 has produced a regulatory template that other states are likely to follow. Several patterns are worth tracking:
Which states have laws restricting private real estate listings?
As of June 2026, three states have enacted laws and one awaits signature: Wisconsin (Act 69, signed December 2025, effective January 1, 2027), Washington (SB 6091, signed March 16, 2026, effective June 11, 2026), and Connecticut (SB 340, signed May 27, 2026, effective October 1, 2026) are enacted; New York (S10274, passed both chambers in early June 2026) is pending Governor Hochul's signature, with a 180-day effective window once signed. Illinois and Hawaii have private listing legislation in progress.
What's the difference between an opt-out model and a prohibition model?
An opt-out model permits private marketing when the seller signs a written direction acknowledging the risks — used by Wisconsin, Connecticut, New York, and the pending Illinois and Hawaii bills. A prohibition model bans private marketing outright, with exceptions only for owner health or safety — Washington's SB 6091 is currently the only state on this model. The practical difference: in opt-out states, a seller can choose restricted marketing for personal reasons (privacy preference, divorce, family circumstances) after signing the state disclosure. In Washington, the safety exception is the only path; a seller's preference for privacy alone is not sufficient grounds to forgo public marketing.
Which state's law takes effect first?
Washington's SB 6091 takes effect June 11, 2026 — earliest of the four enacted laws. Connecticut's SB 340 follows on October 1, 2026. New York's S10274 will take effect 180 days after Governor Hochul signs (variable). Wisconsin's Act 69 takes effect January 1, 2027 — last of the four, but it was signed first (December 2025).
Do these laws apply to commercial properties?
No. All four enacted state laws are limited to residential properties — generally one to four dwelling units. Commercial property, larger multi-family, and certain specialty property types are outside their scope. However, brokers operating across both residential and commercial transactions should still document their decision-making for any unusual marketing arrangement, since fiduciary duty principles apply regardless of property type.
What documentation should brokers maintain to comply?
The architecture varies slightly by state, but the common pattern is: (1) the state-required or state-prescribed disclosure-and-opt-out form, which satisfies the statutory disclosure requirement; (2) a deliberation record documenting how the seller arrived at the choice the form records, including the broker's substantive walk-through of the comparison between public and restricted marketing in the seller's specific market; and (3) the regional MLS's own withhold-listing or restricted-distribution paperwork, where applicable. The Listing Strategy Decision Record is the deliberation record component — a configured, contemporaneous, dual-signed artifact that pairs with whichever state-required form applies in the seller's jurisdiction.
Does the LSDR work in Washington's prohibition-model state?
Yes, and arguably more importantly than in opt-out states. Washington's SB 6091 prohibits private marketing except where reasonably necessary to protect the owner's health or safety. A broker invoking the safety exception needs to document the specific safety concern, the basis for the broker's reasonable belief, and the seller's affirmative invocation of the exception. The LSDR is the structured place to capture that documentation — without which a broker's safety-exception claim rests on verbal recollection that does not stand up well to regulatory scrutiny.
What about brokerage-internal private listing networks like Compass Private Exclusives?
These networks face direct exposure under all four state laws. Washington SB 6091 prohibits marketing to a limited or exclusive group without concurrent public marketing — a brokerage-internal network is, by definition, a limited group. Connecticut's SB 340 explicitly names "inclusion on a private network established among not less than two real estate brokerage agencies or franchisees" as a triggering activity. New York's S10274 excludes from the definition of "publicly advertise or market" any platform requiring the consumer to work with the listing brokerage to access — which describes brokerage-internal networks precisely. Wisconsin's Act 69 requires public marketing within one business day. Brokers using these networks should expect either to abandon them in regulated states, to additionally publicly market every listing concurrently, or — where permissible — to obtain the seller's signed opt-out before private marketing begins.
The Listing Strategy Decision Record is configured per-licensee for the brokerage's identity, the regional MLS data, and the state's specific compliance requirements. One licensed tool, configured to your state's framework. The deliberation record that pairs with whichever state-required form applies.
Start configuration → See pricing →Sources cited. Wisconsin's 2025 Act 69 (signed December 2025; effective January 1, 2027). Washington Senate Bill 6091, Chapter 57, 2026 Laws (signed March 16, 2026; effective June 11, 2026; Sponsor: Sen. Marko Liias). Connecticut Senate Bill 340 (signed May 27, 2026; effective October 1, 2026). New York Senate Bill S10274 (passed both chambers June 2026; Sponsor: Sen. Fernandez; pending governor). Coverage: HousingWire (March 17 and June 2, 2026), Real Estate News (June 1, 2026), RISMedia (April 15, May 13, and June 2, 2026), Seattle Agent Magazine (March 17, 2026), The Real Deal (March 18, 2026). This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Brokers should consult counsel for guidance on compliance with the laws of their specific state(s) and the MLS(es) in which they participate.