New Inman contributor Colette Stephenson writes that when access to homes is filtered through limited showings, selective exposure, or overly restrictive buyer criteria, the result is that a particular buyer’s chances of participation are reduced altogether.
April is National Fair Housing Month, a time for our industry to focus on access, equity, and outcomes.
But there is an important part of this conversation that is often overlooked. It’s how access is formed long before the transaction is completed.
In the real estate industry, we are taught early and often that we must act in the best interest of our customers. This principle is fundamental and defines fiduciary responsibility. However, this principle has its limits in this industry.
Recently, I’ve seen the theory take hold that an agent’s fiduciary duty to the seller may justify restricting who can view, bid on, and purchase a home. The reason is well known. We are simply doing what is best for our clients.
That argument is not ethically bankrupt. Legally it’s a failure.
Although the Fair Housing Act draws a clear line, it is often misunderstood in everyday practice. Individual homeowners may be eligible for a narrow exemption when selling on their own. However, these exemptions disappear the moment the broker enters the trade.
The distinction is not technical. That’s intentional.
Brokers are not passive participants. These determine how homes are brought to market: how they are presented to the public, who sees them, how access is structured, and ultimately how offers are presented.
Brokers also shape opportunities because they control access.
Fair housing laws apply beyond the point of decision to the point of access. Fiduciary duty has never required us to follow illegal instructions.
Brokers can’t hide major flaws because the seller prefers it. You cannot misrepresent facts to gain influence. And we cannot create barriers, intentional or otherwise, that limit equitable access to housing.
Industry blind spots
One of the most persistent misconceptions in our industry is that intent is important for fair housing. it’s not. This law focuses on influence.
When access to a home is filtered through limited showings, selective exposure, or overly restrictive buyer criteria, the result is a reduced opportunity for a particular buyer to participate at all.
By the time the contract is signed, the market is already formed.
Fair housing protects opportunity. Not the result. That distinction is important.
This is because the assumption that “everyone had a fair chance” is often made after access has already been narrowed down. If buyers haven’t had a chance to compete, the market won’t speak for them.
Influence is important and responsibility
One reason sellers hire brokers is to give them leverage.
Brokers bring expertise, credibility, and judgment to determine how properties are priced, positioned, marketed, and ultimately sold. The impact is manifested in the following:
How widely the property will be exposed How the display of access will be structured How the offers will be ordered and presented
These are not mechanical decisions. These are professional judgments, and those judgments are important. It’s not just about results, it’s about access.
None of this is inherently problematic. In fact, that’s why brokers are so valuable.
The problem arises when influence over a process begins to act as a control over access. Fair housing, as a legal boundary, then enters the discussion.
The role of MLS will be important here as well. MLS is neutral by design and designed to create broad and consistent exposure, ensuring that access to listings is not limited by individual discretion, but rather governed by shared rules that promote transparency while fostering democracy and opportunity.
Seller rights remain important within the market
This does not prejudice Seller’s rights. Sellers can set prices, define terms, and decide whether to sell. What they cannot do through their brokers is decide who to exclude before the market works.
Therefore, the Fair Housing Act enforces opportunity and ensures that the market determines outcomes.
It’s not anti-seller. It’s a pro market.
What this means for brokers
This does not limit the professional’s discretion. It’s about understanding where there are already limits to that discretion.
Brokers that offer open, documented, non-discriminatory access are not betraying their customers. They protect them from legal exposure, reputational risk, and participation in activities that undermine confidence in the market itself.
At REsides, we do not believe that fiduciary responsibility and fair housing are in conflict. In fact, we believe that fiduciary duty exists in the law.
Real estate is more than just a business; it’s an infrastructure that creates opportunity. And with that distinction comes responsibility.
Colette Stevenson is the CEO of REsides, an independent, borderless MLS. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
