Why it matters
On July 14, 2026 the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of REBNY's First Amendment and state-preemption challenges to the FARE Act. One narrow claim involving tenant-pays listing agreements signed before December 13, 2024 remains. By then the law had been in effect for more than a year, the city had received more than 2,000 complaints and inquiries, and the old open-listing model had already been dismantled in much of the market.
Litigation can defend an industry position; it cannot substitute for a transition plan. The agents left most exposed were not the people directing the case. They were the rental specialists who had to explain an ambiguous law to owners, rebuild how they were paid and keep prospecting while the appeal moved through court.
What it changes
REBNY was right to seek clarity where publishing a listing could determine who is deemed to have hired the broker. But an appeal is not operating guidance, and for thirteen months agents still had to decide what to advertise, what to sign and whether a fee was collectible.
The final appellate result was not a close rescue. The court affirmed dismissal of the speech and preemption claims and left only a limited contracts issue for agreements that predated the law. Any current business plan that still depends on the lawsuit reversing FARE is not a plan.
Enforcement was real but hardly uniform: more than 2,000 complaints and inquiries produced 74 summonses alleging 100 violations by June 2026. That gap does not make the rule optional. It means individual agents carried uncertainty that should have been absorbed by standardized forms, office training and clear owner agreements.
Renters had a legitimate complaint about being forced to pay an agent they did not hire. Rental agents also perform legitimate work and need a lawful path to compensation. Treating those statements as mutually exclusive is how the people doing the work disappeared from the policy conversation.
The useful question now is not whether REBNY should keep litigating. It is what a dues-paying rental agent receives this week: a current engagement form, an owner compensation script, a compliant listing template and a way to distribute inventory without guessing.
Use this language
The owner conversation after the appeal
The FARE Act is in effect and the federal appeals court rejected the main challenge to it in July. If I advertise this apartment with your permission, I cannot make the incoming tenant pay my listing-side fee.
My work on your behalf is [pricing, photography, advertising, inquiries, showings, screening coordination and lease execution]. My fee for that work is [amount or structure], paid by [party] under a written agreement before launch.
If you do not want to hire a listing agent on those terms, I will not market the unit as though you did. What I cannot do is advertise first and invent the agency and fee arrangement after a renter responds.
Next steps
- Stop presenting the appeal as a possible return to the old market.
- Put the hiring party, services and compensation in writing before marketing a unit.
- Ask your brokerage or trade group for dated forms and written guidance, not a webinar summary.
- Track every owner who declined to pay and every assignment you lost; anecdotes become evidence only when someone records them.
From field note to send
See what the listing email actually looks like
Compare the four single-listing designs before deciding whether a $99 send fits this property.