On October 1, 2025, nearly three years since the initial complaint in In re: RealPage, Inc. Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II), plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation in Tennessee reached preliminary class action settlements with 26 defendants totaling $141,800,000. Plaintiffs allege that property managers, owners, and RealPage, Inc. entered into a hub-and-spoke conspiracy to fix rental prices for multifamily housing rental units. As part of the settlement, the settling defendants do not admit to any wrongdoing.
The settlement agreements provide that in exchange for complete release of legal claims, settling defendants will make monetary payments ranging from $50 million to as low as $550,000, provide certain litigation cooperation to Plaintiffs, and not to engage in certain conduct going forward. RealPage and the remaining property owner/manager defendants continue to vigorously defend against the price-fixing claims stating that it “does not anticipate needing to make any changes to its revenue management software for customers to continue using the products pursuant to any terms in these settlements.”
Settling Defendants’ Commitments in the Tennessee MDL
Pursuant to the proposed settlements, the settling defendants agreed not to provide nonpublic data to RealPage to generate pricing recommendations. The defendants also agreed to cease using RealPage’s revenue management software to the extent it relies on nonpublic competitor data, including agreeing to modify their contract terms with RealPage to further limit the use of nonpublic data in RealPage’s pricing recommendations. Settling defendants, with few exceptions, also agreed to waive their ability to enforce jury trial waivers, class action waivers, and arbitration clauses, related to the claims at issue. In addition, the settling defendants agreed to provide certain cooperation to the ongoing lawsuit. None of the settling defendants admitted to wrongdoing. The settling parties have filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the settlements, which is currently pending before the Court.
Algorithmic Collusion Remains Under the Microscope
In the backdrop of this settlement, other property managers, including Cortland Management, LLC and William C. Smith & Co., Inc., settled similar claims with the Department of Justice and the District of Columbia Attorney General. Lawsuits continue to target pricing software firms that collect competitively sensitive information and generate pricing recommendations for their respective customers. Companies should engage with antitrust counsel on managing proprietary data and how to develop and use algorithmic pricing software to advance their business needs while remaining in compliance with antitrust laws.
Enforcement and legislative activity by state Attorneys General and local cities related to algorithmic pricing software is expected to continue. Several cities, including Minneapolis, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Berkeley have passed ordinances prohibiting landlords from using algorithmic software to set prices. In addition, state Attorneys General have brought algorithmic price-fixing claims against RealPage and property landlords in Arizona, Washington, Kentucky, and New Jersey. On September 19, RealPage announced a settlement with the Nevada Attorney General, the first such settlement with a state Attorney General to resolve algorithmic price-fixing allegations. We expect state Attorneys General to continue enforcement in this area as they commit to protecting consumers from inflated rent prices within their respective states.
Key Takeaway from Ongoing Algorithm Cases
- Sharing Nonpublic Competitively Sensitive Information is Being Scrutinized. Companies should carefully consider inputs provided to pricing software vendors and have a clear understanding of how the software generates pricing recommendations for licensees.
- Algorithmic Pricing Software Remains in the Hot Seat. Algorithmic price-fixing and information-sharing claims by state Attorneys General and private plaintiffs in the healthcare, agriculture, and construction industries continue to progress, making this an area to watch moving forward.
- Compliance Remains Key. Engaging antitrust counsel to advise on disclosing proprietary information will be helpful to minimize antitrust liability. Implementing antitrust compliance training tailored to the use of artificial intelligence and algorithmic pricing software and engaging counsel to advise on business operations and licensing agreements will be useful to limit antitrust liability.
Noelle Choi (Associate) contributed to this blog post.
