Direct Seller and Real Estate Agent Harmonization Act
Introduced May 19, 2025 · Last action February 11, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to exclude direct sellers and qualified real estate agents from the legal definition of 'employee.' This means these workers would not be entitled to federal minimum wage, overtime pay, or other employee protections under federal labor law. The bill references the Internal Revenue Code's definitions of these worker categories.
Who benefits
Direct selling companies (Amway, Herbalife, Mary Kay, Younique, and similar multi-level marketing firms), real estate brokerage firms and brokers, and individual real estate agents operating as independent contractors who would be exempt from providing minimum wage and overtime pay obligations.
Who pays / loses
Direct sellers and real estate agents classified as independent contractors lose access to federal minimum wage guarantees, overtime pay (time-and-a-half for hours over 40 per week), meal and rest break protections, and other Fair Labor Standards Act protections. Workers currently classified as employees in these industries risk reclassification as independent contractors, losing benefits and wage protections.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
Direct selling companies and real estate industry associations lobby for independent contractor classification to avoid payroll taxes, workers' compensation insurance, and benefits obligations. The Real Estate Board of New York, National Association of Realtors, and direct selling industry groups (Direct Selling Association) have financial stakes in contractor-friendly definitions. Multi-level marketing companies benefit significantly from exemptions that allow them to avoid treating salespeople as employees.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Approximately 6.2 million direct sellers in the U.S. (per Federal Trade Commission data) and roughly 2 million real estate agents would lose or be at risk of losing federal wage and hour protections. The impact falls disproportionately on women, who represent approximately 70% of direct sellers and a substantial portion of real estate agents. Low-income workers and those in rural areas with limited employment alternatives face higher risk of wage erosion.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue this bill clarifies existing law and reduces regulatory burden on independent business owners and flexible work arrangements. Critics contend the bill enables wage suppression and eliminates protections for vulnerable workers, particularly women in direct selling and real estate. Academic research on gig economy and independent contractor classification shows mixed outcomes: some workers value flexibility, but aggregate earnings data reveal that independent contractor status correlates with reduced income, no benefits, and increased financial instability compared to employee status. The bill does not include safeguards against misclassification abuse documented in other industries (trucking, delivery services).
Real-World Stakes
If passed, workers in direct selling and real estate could face pressure to accept lower compensation without wage floor protections. Direct selling has been scrutinized by the Federal Trade Commission for predatory income structures; removing wage protections could intensify that risk. Real estate markets may see commission pressure intensify in competitive regions. Analogous contractor-classification bills in gig economy sectors (ride-share, delivery) have produced documented outcomes: California's Proposition 22 (2020) exempted ride-share platforms from employee classification, resulting in driver earnings that fell below minimum wage in many cases and eliminated benefits access, according to UC Berkeley Labor Center analysis. When Massachusetts attempted similar contractor exemptions in 2016, subsequent litigation and state court rulings found misclassification widespread. The bill does not authorize the Department of Labor to investigate misclassification or enforce the exemption, creating enforcement uncertainty.
What's Inside This Bill
Non-obvious provisions not apparent from the headline summary.
IRC Definition Incorporation by Reference
The bill incorporates IRS tax code definitions of 'direct seller' and 'qualified real estate agent' by reference, meaning changes to IRS regulations automatically change who loses FLSA protections without requiring new legislation.
AffectsWorkers in direct sales and real estate whose classification could shift based on future IRS regulatory interpretations, potentially gaining or losing protections unpredictably.
Preemption of State Labor Laws
By amending the federal FLSA definition, this likely preempts state and local laws that currently classify these workers as employees entitled to minimum wage and overtime protections.
AffectsDirect sellers and real estate agents in states like California, New York, and others with stronger worker protections would lose access to those state-level safeguards.
No Retroactive Liability Carve-Out
The bill does not specify whether employers can be held liable for misclassification of these workers prior to the bill's enactment, potentially creating uncertainty about wage claims for past work.
AffectsWorkers who were recently reclassified as independent contractors could lose claims for back wages and unpaid overtime for the period before this law takes effect.
Absence of Misclassification Safeguards
The bill lacks provisions preventing employers from misclassifying other employees as 'direct sellers' or falsely qualifying them as 'real estate agents' to avoid FLSA compliance.
AffectsWorkers in adjacent occupations (customer service, inside sales, leasing agents) could be misclassified into these exempted categories by employers seeking to avoid wage and hour obligations.
No Reporting or Transparency Requirements
The bill contains no requirement for employers to report how many workers are reclassified, provide notice to affected workers, or disclose the reclassification to wage and hour agencies.
Labor departments and workers cannot track the scope of worker reclassification or identify potential violations, reducing enforcement capability.
Sponsor
Co-sponsors (31)
DRep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3]RRep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8]RRep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1]RRep. Crank, Jeff [R-CO-5]RRep. McGuire, John [R-VA-5]RRep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]RRep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]RRep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1]DRep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42]RRep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-9]DRep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3]RRep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]DRep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9]RRep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]RRep. Alford, Mark [R-MO-4]RRep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22]RRep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41]DRep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-4]RRep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2]DRep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-32]+11 more
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$107,658.29
Finance$19,869.07
Energy$17,800
Agriculture$3,350
Law$2,919.23
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.