The Washington Report

The U.S. Copyright Office recently sought public comment on proposed increases to copyright registration fees. NAR submitted comments opposing the proposal and also joined a broader content creator coalition, called the Copyright Alliance, urging modernization of the copyright registration system as a more effective way to reduce costs.

Copyright registration is required to enforce intellectual property rights in federal court, including access to statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. For real estate professionals, registration is a critical tool for protecting listing content, photographs, and MLS databases. Without registration, stopping large‑scale copying, scraping, or misuse of real estate content is even more difficult.

While supporting reasonable cost recovery for a modern and efficient Copyright Office, NAR and the coalition opposed further fee increases without adequate justification. Instead, NAR urged modernization of the registration process—particularly expanded electronic filing—as a more effective way to control costs for both filers and the office. Modernization, rather than repeated fee increases, would improve efficiency while preserving broad access to copyright registration across industries.

In addition to the coalition’s comments, NAR focused on the proposed increase in MLS database registration fees, which follows a steep increase imposed in 2020. According to NAR’s analysis, higher fees have corresponded with fewer MLS registrations over time—an outcome that runs counter to the goals of the copyright system. MLSs, in particular, operate on tight margins in highly competitive markets and are facing disproportionate pressure from large‑scale data scraping and AI‑driven misuse.

NAR will continue advocating for real estate professionals, their businesses, and MLSs by supporting strong copyright protections, modernization of the Copyright Office, and reasonable registration fees so real estate content creators can protect and enforce their work effectively.

Video: NAR Opposes Copyright Office Fee Increases

Read NAR’s Letter to US Copyright Office

Read Copyright Alliance Letter

On April 21, 2026, the House Energy & Commerce Privacy Working Group introduced the SECURE Data Act (H.R. 8413), based on model legislation adopted by 19 states that provides consumer data rights, limits how personal data is collected and used, and relies on enforcement by regulators.

The bill would create consumer rights to notice, access, correction, portability, deletion, opt out, and opt in for certain data processing activities. These rights would be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), while preserving state attorneys general authority to act where the FTC has not initiated an enforcement action. The bill does not create a private right of action for consumers to sue businesses.

This represents a reset in the federal consumer data privacy debate. Compared to past proposals, its requirements are more workable and closely aligned with existing state consensus privacy models, and it is widely viewed as a starting point for negotiation as Congress considers national data privacy legislation through regular order.

What This Means for Real Estate

• The bill would establish a single national data privacy standard, replacing the current patchwork of state laws.
• Real estate businesses operating in multiple states could comply with one uniform federal framework, rather than navigating differing state requirements.
• The bill includes an FTC registry for data brokers—businesses that sell consumer personal data without a direct relationship and derive more than 50 percent of their revenue from those sales.
• Most real estate businesses, including MLSs, are unlikely to be covered because they primarily handle property data rather than personal data, or do so at the direction of consumers.
• For larger or more complex businesses, the bill generally aligns with existing data practices, though applicability may depend on scale and how data is used.
• Overall, a uniform national standard would provide greater certainty and predictability for real estate businesses and reduce litigation risk, particularly for those operating across multiple jurisdictions.

Additional Details

A high-level summary of the SECURE Data Act, including key provisions, applicability thresholds, and compliance obligations, is provided in the attached document.

Read NAR's SECURE Data Act Summary

NAR, in collaboration with Andrew Davidson & Co—a boutique firm that specializes in pricing mortgage-backed security (MBS) and credit risk transfer (CRT)— submitted a comment to the Fed’s Treasury Market Practices Group (TMPG). The TMPG is a panel of academics and industry experts in capital markets (e.g. JP Morgan, Black Rock) that advises the Federal Reserve. The TMPG put out a white paper on potential pitfalls from government-sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) reform and asked for input. NAR previously collaborated with Andrew Davidson & Co on NAR’s private market utility proposal.

The response emphasizes:

1. An inappropriate government guarantee will raise risks to the system and costs to consumers. Studies to date focused on the impact in normal times, but more study should be done on the cost to consumers in a crisis;
2. The uniform mortgage-backed security (UMBS)—the joint Fannie/Freddie MBS that replaced their individually branded MBS—was an important innovation. It relies on a sound to-be-announced (TBA) market (a submarket of MBS) that would be threatened by a bad guarantee, weak FHFA, or poor governance of the GSEs;
3. The GSEs’ portfolios should be used for charter duties only and not opportunistic investing as they did pre-2008; and
4. A market utility, as proposed by NAR and Andrew Davidson & Co, solves these issues, maintains private capital/innovation/accountability, protects taxpayers, and supports consumers/homeownership.

For additional information, please contact Ken Fears at [email protected] or Matt Emery at [email protected].

HUD published a proposed rule in February 2026 that would bar mixed-status households—families that include both members with and without eligible immigration status—from receiving HUD rental assistance, including Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) and project-based assistance. The proposal would eliminate a longstanding regulatory framework under which mixed-status families may receive assistance calculated based on the number of eligible household members, with no subsidy flowing to ineligible individuals.

While NAR did not submit a formal comment, several industry trade associations cautioned that the rule's implementation could significantly disrupt private housing provider participation and impose substantial administrative and financial burdens across the assisted housing market. The comment period closed April 21, 2026.

The CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.) focused their comments on existing tenancies, urging HUD to preserve current lease agreements under their original terms. C.A.R. expressed concern that applying new eligibility standards retroactively would create legal uncertainty and impose costs that small, independent housing providers—particularly in states like California with strong tenant protection laws—may be unable to absorb.

The National Association of Residential Property Managers (NARPM) raised concerns about the financial and operational consequences for HCV property owners and managers, warning that voucher terminations under the rule would leave owners exposed to direct revenue losses with no mechanism for relief and that the cumulative weight of financial risks and unresolved legal exposure could discourage private owners from remaining in the program at precisely the moment the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) needs to be expanding, not contracting, the pool of available properties.

The National Housing Conference (NHC) warned that the proposal would displace approximately 20,000 households—including roughly 36,000 children, most of them U.S. citizens—and could push tens of thousands of people into homelessness. NHC also argued that the rule is fiscally counterproductive: Ending prorated assistance would cost between $311 million and $385 million more to serve the same number of families. NHC further cautioned that the administrative burdens imposed on public housing authorities and affordable housing providers could discourage private owner participation and threaten the public-private partnerships essential to preserving and expanding the nation's affordable housing supply.

NAR will continue to monitor this rulemaking and engage as the rule moves toward finalization.

The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), joined by the New York State Association of REALTORS® (NYSAR) and a coalition of industry partners, filed an amicus brief supporting housing providers challenging New York’s Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The housing providers argue that the law’s prohibition on vacancy rent increases constitutes an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. 

The RSL applies to buildings with six or more units built before 1974 and limits a housing provider’s ability to raise rents when a unit becomes vacant (vacancy lease) and when a tenant renews a lease (renewal lease). This case focuses on vacancy leases under the RSL, which require owners to rent apartments at rates tied to what prior tenants paid, often decades earlier, without regard to current market conditions or the cost of legally required repairs.  

The consequences are significant. Housing providers estimate that the vacancy cap has removed roughly 24,000 units from the rental market, intensifying the housing shortage and limiting options for renters. For example, Plaintiff RPN Management has vacant two-bedroom units capped at approximately $710 and $860 per month. These rents fall far below the cost of necessary repairs, including work required to bring the apartments into compliance with the law. Other units in the same building command higher, though still capped, rents, highlighting the arbitrary nature of the RSL’s vacancy lease provision.

More broadly, rent stabilized housing under the RSL is not allocated based on financial need. Units with little turnover often remain priced far below comparable apartments that have changed tenants more frequently, creating disparities that bear little relationship to market value or tenant circumstances. 

The amicus brief argues that policies which render housing economically unviable ultimately harm tenants by discouraging reinvestment and reducing supply. Citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the housing provider plaintiffs maintain that regulations depriving owners of all economically beneficial use of property amount to a per se taking requiring just compensation. Although state and city defendants have moved to dismiss the case, NAR and its partners urge the court to address the merits of the housing providers’ claims. 

NAR further argues measures that distort markets and deter investment, particularly for small-scale housing providers, exacerbate supply constraints and undermine long term affordability. In this case, the plaintiffs frame the challenge as a matter of both constitutional principle and practical necessity, warning that policies like the RSL can leave otherwise usable apartments vacant and out of reach in a city already facing acute housing shortages. 

NAR continues to advocate for policies that expand housing availability and protect both tenants and property owners alike. We will continue to monitor any developments in this case and provide updates accordingly.   

The Appraisal Foundation released a second exposure draft of its Proposed Advisory Opinion 41, which seeks to provide guidance to appraisers using advanced technological tools such as artificial intelligence in the appraisal process. 

NAR identified potential confusing language in the original draft and issued a comment letter praising the increased clarity provided in the second draft. 

NAR is committed to maintaining the success of the appraisal profession and preserving access to homeownership and is encouraged by the ASB’s proposal to add guidance on USPAP adherence while using rapidly evolving technological tools. The added clarity in the second exposure draft helps ensure that appraiser responsibilities are understood.

Read NAR's comment letter to the Appraisal Foundation.

NAR recently submitted a comment letter in support of the new proposed independent contractor rule issued by the United States Department of Labor. In February 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a new Notice of Proposed Rule (NPR) for how workers should be classified under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 

The new rule adopts an economic reality test, which includes a five-factor test or analysis for how workers should be classified under the FLSA. The rule proposes that two of the five factors would be core factors for determining a worker’s classification. The key determinative factors would be “the nature and degree of control over the work” and “the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss.” The proposed rule is more favorable and offers a framework that is more predictable and consistent for the industry to follow. In its comment letter, NAR also encouraged the Labor Department to consider providing an exemption for real estate professionals under the law to ensure that federal labor laws are consistent with the treatment of real estate professionals for tax law purposes.

NAR values and prioritizes worker classification matters and will continue to advocate in support of practitioners. Additionally, NAR will continue to provide updates regarding independent contractor matters.