Texas real estate is changing quickly. Brokerages are growing across multiple entities, teams are becoming more complex, transaction coordinators are taking on larger roles, artificial intelligence is entering day-to-day practice, and consumers are often interacting with more people than they can easily identify. In that environment, broker responsibility cannot be treated as a static checklist. It has to be reviewed, tested, clarified, and taught in a way that reflects how real estate is actually being practiced.
That is the work the Broker Responsibility Advisory Committee has been focused on in 2026.
Across its January, April, and July meetings, BRAC has worked through some of the most practical issues facing Texas brokers and consumers: intermediary relationships, open house supervision, showing services, transaction coordinator oversight, inactive license reactivation, artificial intelligence, team structures, advertising, confidentiality, and the need for better education. The common thread has been clear. The committee is working to strengthen broker accountability while helping the Texas Real Estate Commission and the Commissioners identify where rules, forms, education, and guidance may need to evolve.
BRAC does not operate in a vacuum, and it does not replace the Commission. Its role is advisory. The committee studies issues, hears public and industry input, discusses practical consequences, and sends recommendations or topics forward for further consideration. That process matters because strong consumer protection depends on more than enforcement after something goes wrong. It depends on clear expectations before the transaction begins.
A Renewed Focus on Broker Supervision
One of the strongest themes from the 2026 meetings has been broker supervision. Modern brokerage models can involve multiple brands, affiliated entities, teams, designated supervisors, showing partners, transaction coordinators, and outside technology vendors. That complexity can create confusion for consumers and risk for brokers if lines of authority are not clear.
The January meeting highlighted several practical examples. Committee discussion covered open houses hosted by license holders from other brokerages, showing services that compensate agents outside their sponsoring broker, team structures, and who should appear on contracts or disclosures. These are not abstract questions. They affect who is responsible for supervising the consumer interaction, who is authorized to act, how compensation is handled, and whether the consumer understands who represents whom.
BRAC's work in this area points toward a simple but important principle: consumers should not have to guess who is responsible. If a license holder is holding an open house, assisting with a showing, coordinating a transaction, or presenting themselves as part of a team, the broker supervision structure needs to be clear. That protects the consumer, and it protects the brokerages that are trying to operate correctly.
Intermediary and the Need for Clarity
The April meeting included a major discussion around intermediary. Staff explained that Texas has historically tied intermediary duties to the licensed broker entity. Committee members debated whether the analysis should instead focus more directly on the individual designated broker or supervising broker, especially in situations where one person may be tied to multiple entities or roles.
That distinction matters because intermediary is one of the most sensitive areas in Texas brokerage practice. When the same brokerage structure is connected to both sides of a transaction, consumers need clarity about representation, conflicts, and limitations on advice. The committee's discussion reflected concern that the current framework may not always match how brokerage businesses are structured today.
BRAC's April motion to move the designated-broker interpretation forward for additional Commission consideration showed the committee's willingness to address a hard issue directly. The goal is not to create confusion for brokers. The goal is to make sure intermediary duties are applied in a way that is transparent, understandable, and aligned with actual supervision.
Transaction Coordinators: Helpful Role, Real Risk
Transaction coordinators were a recurring topic in all three meetings. The committee heard and discussed concerns involving both licensed and unlicensed TCs, especially when a TC works across multiple brokerages or handles sensitive documents and communications without clear oversight.
Transaction coordinators can be valuable. They can help organize timelines, collect paperwork, communicate reminders, and support a smoother closing process. The risk comes when the role becomes unclear. If a TC is communicating with consumers, handling documents, accessing private information, or working for multiple brokers, the supervising broker needs to know exactly what the TC is doing and where the limits are.
The April meeting included a particularly serious public comment involving alleged misconduct by an unlicensed transaction coordinator and significant financial loss. That discussion led BRAC to ask the broker-lawyer committee to consider draft disclosure language explaining whether a transaction coordinator is licensed or unlicensed and what activities the TC may perform.
That is a practical consumer-protection step. Consumers should know who is involved in their transaction. Brokers should have clear written policies for TCs. License holders should understand that outsourcing task management does not outsource broker responsibility.
Artificial Intelligence and Human Oversight
By July, artificial intelligence had become one of the committee's most important forward-looking topics. The discussion did not treat AI as something to ban. It focused on how license holders use it, what risks it creates, and what broker oversight should look like.
The issues are real. Uploading consumer documents into an AI platform can create privacy and confidentiality problems. Automated screening, valuation, or recommendation tools can create fair-housing concerns if they produce biased results. AI-generated listing descriptions, virtual staging, image edits, market commentary, or chatbot responses can mislead consumers if no qualified human reviews them.
The committee's direction was practical: focus on license-holder conduct, broker policies, and human review. In other words, the issue is not whether technology exists. The issue is whether brokers and agents are using technology in a way that protects consumers and complies with Texas law.
For Texas brokerages, that means AI policies are no longer optional. Firms should decide what tools may be used, what information may never be uploaded, who reviews AI-assisted content, how advertising is checked, and how consumer-facing communications are supervised. The safest approach is not fear of technology. It is disciplined, documented use.
Returning Inactive License Holders to Practice the Right Way
BRAC also spent meaningful time discussing license holders who return to active practice after being inactive. The concern is straightforward: a license holder may technically return to practice, but the market, forms, contracts, rules, compensation structures, advertising standards, and technology tools may have changed while that person was inactive.
The committee discussed a proposed readiness or refresher course for returning license holders. Topics included contracts, agency and representation, broker responsibility, compensation, forms, advertising, AI, fair housing, fraud prevention, records, and practical scenarios.
This work is consumer protection at the front end. A consumer should be able to trust that a license holder re-entering the market is current on the rules and competent to practice. A focused refresher requirement would help returning agents re-engage responsibly and would give brokers more confidence when sponsoring someone who has been away from the business.
Education as a Consumer-Protection Tool
Another consistent theme was education. Committee members repeatedly discussed the need for better broker and agent education around open houses, showing forms, transaction coordination, team structure, intermediary, advertising, AI, and confidentiality. Suggestions included clearer guidance, videos, course content, and future agenda work.
That matters because many compliance problems begin as knowledge gaps. A broker may not fully understand how a showing-service payment arrangement affects supervision. An agent may not realize that hosting an open house for another broker creates disclosure and representation issues. A transaction coordinator may drift into conduct that requires a license. A team may market itself in a way that confuses the consumer about the responsible broker.
Education does not eliminate enforcement. It makes enforcement less necessary by helping brokers and agents get it right earlier.
Working Alongside the Commission
The committee's 2026 work shows a healthy advisory process. BRAC is identifying issues from the field, testing them against real brokerage practice, listening to public input, and moving topics forward for Commission, staff, ESAC, or broker-lawyer consideration where appropriate.
That is how thoughtful regulation should work. Texas real estate is too large and too varied for one-size-fits-all assumptions. At the same time, consumers deserve consistent protections no matter what brokerage model, team structure, technology platform, or coordinator arrangement is involved in their transaction.
The Commission's work and BRAC's advisory role are strongest when they stay connected to real practice. The 2026 meetings show that connection. The committee is not only talking about rules on paper. It is asking how consumers experience those rules at an open house, in a dual-representation scenario, during a transaction handled by a coordinator, when an AI tool touches their data, or when a returning license holder steps back into active practice.
The Bigger Picture
BRAC's work this year reflects a clear direction for Texas real estate: stronger supervision, clearer disclosures, better education, more transparency, and practical consumer protection.
For brokers, the message is to tighten policies before problems appear. Review open house procedures. Document showing-service arrangements. Clarify transaction coordinator roles. Revisit team advertising. Build AI policies. Protect consumer documents. Train returning and newer agents. Make sure intermediary and representation issues are handled with precision.
For consumers, the benefit is a more transparent transaction. They should know who is representing them, who is supervising the people involved, who has access to their information, and what role each person plays.
For the industry, the work is a reminder that professionalism is not measured only by production. It is measured by supervision, competence, disclosure, and accountability.
Texas real estate will keep evolving. BRAC's job is to help make sure broker responsibility evolves with it.
A Note from BRAC Chairman Ty Williams
"I am very proud of the work the Broker Responsibility Advisory Committee is doing this year. This committee is engaged, forward-thinking, and willing to take on difficult issues before they become bigger problems for Texas consumers. Topics like transaction coordinator oversight and artificial intelligence are not simple, but they are exactly the kinds of conversations we need to be having.
This is not the end of the story. It is the beginning of important work that will continue as the market, technology, and brokerage models evolve. I am proud to serve alongside an excellent committee that is working hard for Texas consumers, and I am grateful for the leadership of our Texas Real Estate Commissioners as we continue moving this work forward."
Source Meetings
This article is based on public meeting discussions from the Broker Responsibility Advisory Committee meetings held January 21, 2026, April 8, 2026, and July 14, 2026.
Meeting recordings reviewed: January 21, 2026 BRAC meeting; April 8, 2026 BRAC meeting; July 14, 2026 BRAC meeting.