Australia's competition regulator has forced a sharp change in the country's largest property-listing portal: REA Group can no longer require or reward agencies for putting all or most of their sale and rental listings on realestate.com.au. The court-enforceable undertaking announced on 14 September gives agents room to compare portals and packages, but it does not set a price cap, order refunds or guarantee that a vendor's advertising bill will fall.
The contract clauses changed; the portal did not disappear
The ACCC said most REA contracts previously locked agencies into listing all properties for sale or lease on realestate.com.au. Some terms also required or encouraged agencies to use features that attracted higher fees. Under the undertaking, REA must remove provisions that require or incentivise agencies to list all or most properties, and the operational commitments run for three years.
A court-enforceable undertaking is a formal written commitment that a court can enforce if it is breached. It is not the same as a court judgment that REA broke the law. REA acknowledged the ACCC's concerns that the conduct may have breached section 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act, while the regulator said the undertaking resolved its concern without claiming a completed conviction or damages award.
More choice is real, yet a lower invoice still has to be negotiated
The change means an agency should be able to consider a different portal or a lower-feature package without an all-or-most listing condition steering the whole office. It does not stop an agent from recommending realestate.com.au when the agent believes its audience is worth the price. Nor does it prescribe the retail fee for a standard, featured or premium advertisement.
That distinction matters because advertising is commonly passed to the vendor or landlord. ABC reporting during the 2025 investigation described one Melbourne seller's total marketing bill of A$5,880, including A$3,289 for the REA listing, and separate agent reports of some premium Sydney listings costing more than A$5,000. Those were individual historical examples, not a current national tariff; your suburb, agency contract, listing tier and campaign date can produce a different number.
Ask for two campaigns before approving one advertising budget
Before signing an agency agreement, ask for an itemised campaign in writing: portal name, listing tier, upgrade period, photography, floor plan, signboard, agency administration, GST and any relisting fee. Then request a second version using the lowest suitable tier or another portal. The useful comparison is not simply portal A versus portal B; it is the total price for campaigns that deliver the exposure and materials you actually want.
Consider a hypothetical quote with A$3,000 allocated to a premium portal placement and another suitable option at A$1,800. The difference is A$1,200, or 40% of the A$3,000 line item, but it is not automatically a saving on the whole sale because photography, agency fees and the selling result may differ. Ask the agent to explain the expected benefit of the extra A$1,200 and record the cheaper option rather than treating the upgrade as mandatory.
Three questions reveal whether the new flexibility reaches you
Ask whether the agency agreement or its portal subscription still contains any minimum-listing or upgrade condition, whether the agency receives a rebate or volume benefit, and whether the online advertising charge is passed through at cost. For a rental listing, also ask how long the fee covers and what happens if the property must be advertised again. An invoice and the written package description are more useful than a verbal assurance that everyone uses the same option.
The ACCC expects benefits to flow from agents to property owners, but that is an expectation, not a guaranteed dollar amount. I find the intervention encouraging because it removes a contractual obstacle at the agency level; I would still hesitate to call it a win for an individual seller until competing options and fees appear on that seller's quote. The practical test is whether the agent now offers a genuine choice and explains the cost of each path.
The lock is gone; the invoice is the next test
The most important result is narrower than a promise of cheaper housing: agencies gain freedom from all-or-most listing pressure, and vendors and landlords gain a stronger reason to ask for alternatives. If I were approving a campaign now, I would request two itemised versions before signing and keep the portal fee separate from commission and other marketing costs. That turns the ACCC's competition remedy into a decision you can actually check.