House Bill 6002 amends Michigan’s Occupational Code provisions governing real estate advertising. It requires most advertisements to buy, sell, exchange, rent, lease, or mortgage real property or a business opportunity to identify the real estate broker by name, include the broker’s phone number or street address, and state that the advertiser is a real estate broker. The bill also allows brokers and associate brokers to advertise property they personally own in their own names, so long as the advertisement clearly indicates their licensed status.
The bill further tightens rules for salespersons and associate brokers by requiring them to advertise only under the supervision of, and in the business name of, their employing broker, with certain size and contact-information requirements when their names appear in advertising. It also preserves restrictions on salespersons advertising property in their own names unless it is their principal residence or property they own for rental or lease. In addition, the bill requires brokers to use only their licensed or authorized assumed business names and to notify the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs when adopting an assumed name.
A major new disclosure requirement is added for advertisements and listings to sell or mortgage real property: they must include the estimated annual real property taxes based on the property’s state equalized value and current millage rate. This disclosure applies whether or not the property is claimed as a principal residence under the property tax exemption statute, and it is intended to give consumers a clearer picture of likely carrying costs when considering a property.
The bill’s impact is primarily on real estate licensing and advertising practices in Michigan, with direct effects on brokers, associate brokers, salespersons, real estate listings, and advertising content. It also interacts with the General Property Tax Act by tying required disclosure to property tax calculations and principal-residence status. Because the bill text and legislative record provided contain no committee testimony or recorded votes, there is no documented public debate in the materials supplied; however, the structure of the bill suggests a consumer-disclosure and professional-compliance focus rather than a broad policy overhaul.
HB6002 would amend section 2512e of the Occupational Code to expand and clarify mandatory disclosures in real estate advertising, and it would add a new requirement that advertisements and listings for property sales or mortgages disclose estimated annual property taxes. The bill affects licensed real estate brokers, associate brokers, and salespersons, as well as advertising and listing practices across the real estate industry. It also references the General Property Tax Act and principal-residence tax treatment, making property-tax disclosure part of the state’s real estate consumer-information framework.
Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to have a consumer-protection and transparency orientation, emphasizing clearer identification of licensed real estate professionals and more complete cost disclosure for buyers and sellers. No committee transcripts or vote history were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or formal vote sentiment in the supplied materials. The available record therefore suggests a technical regulatory bill with likely support from those favoring disclosure and compliance, but no documented opposition in the materials provided.
The most likely points of contention are the added compliance burden on real estate professionals and the practical difficulty of calculating and updating estimated annual property taxes in advertisements and listings. Brokers and salespersons may view the new disclosure and formatting rules as administrative and marketing constraints, while consumer advocates would likely favor the added transparency. Another possible issue is how the estimated tax figure should be calculated for properties with exemptions, changing millage rates, or unusual assessments, since the bill requires a standardized estimate based on state equalized value and current millage.