An Act Concerning Real Estate Wholesalers And Real Estate Wholesale Contracts.
Summary
HB 5572 creates a new licensing and consumer-protection framework for “real estate wholesalers” and “real estate wholesale contracts,” effective October 1, 2025. The bill defines a wholesaler as a person who facilitates or orchestrates the sale of a seller’s real property to a third party for compensation without taking possession of the property, while excluding licensed real estate professionals acting within their existing licensure. Under the bill, most wholesalers must obtain a one-year license from the Department of Consumer Protection, pay a $285 application fee and a $285 renewal fee, and apply in a form prescribed by the commissioner.
The bill also imposes mandatory contract terms for wholesale agreements. Each contract must identify the wholesaler, include the wholesaler’s license number if applicable, give the seller a 10-day attorney-review period with a right to cancel without penalty, and display a prominent warning advising sellers to consult an attorney or licensed real estate professional. In addition, wholesale contracts may not set a closing date more than 70 days after execution unless all parties agree in writing to extend that period; otherwise, the contract automatically terminates. The Department of Consumer Protection may adopt implementing regulations, and violations of the licensing and contract requirements are treated as unfair or deceptive trade practices under Connecticut’s consumer protection law.
Impact
The bill would add a new regulatory layer to Connecticut’s real estate law by creating a state licensing regime for real estate wholesalers and by regulating the form and timing of wholesale contracts. It would affect wholesalers, property sellers, and potentially third-party buyers involved in assignment-style or off-market transactions, while leaving licensed real estate licensees outside the new definition when acting in their licensed capacity. It also expands enforcement exposure by making violations actionable as unfair or deceptive trade practices under the state’s consumer protection statute, which can trigger administrative and legal remedies.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received and moved forward with strong support, especially in the General Law and Judiciary committees, where it received unanimous favorable votes. The bill later passed the Appropriations Committee with some opposition and then passed the House with a substantial majority, though not unanimously. Overall, the pattern indicates broad legislative support for consumer protections in the wholesaling market, with some lawmakers expressing reservations at the appropriations stage and on the House floor.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether real estate wholesaling should be regulated as a distinct activity and, if so, how far the state should go in imposing licensing and contract restrictions. Supporters likely view the bill as a consumer-protection measure aimed at preventing unfair or misleading wholesale deals and ensuring sellers have time for attorney review. Opponents or skeptics may be concerned about added compliance costs, fees, and limits on a business model used by wholesalers, as well as whether the 70-day closing limit and mandatory disclosures could reduce flexibility in legitimate transactions. The recorded votes show limited but real opposition, especially in Appropriations and the House.
Establishes licensure requirement for wholesale transactions in real estate and certain rights of consumers in contracts for real property sold in wholesale transaction.