Algorithmic rent-pricing litigation expands under new state and local laws

A new wave of litigation focused on violations of municipal regulations is emerging against multifamily housing landlords, many of whom are facing antitrust litigation targeting their use of certain revenue management products. The new regulations may potentially provide a simpler path to liability and the possibility of significant penalties. 

Following federal, state, and private litigation targeting RealPage, Yardi, and landlords that allegedly used revenue-management products, states and municipalities across the country have enacted laws restricting the use of algorithms or price optimization software to share or recommend rents, concessions, lease terms, or occupancy levels. These laws often authorize enforcement through a combination of private rights of action and public enforcement mechanisms, which has led to a new wave of litigation. 

Recent county-level actions in San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, Philadelphia, and Providence, RI suggest that plaintiffs and local governments are beginning to use these laws to assert follow-on claims to the RealPage litigation. This development is significant because some of the new statutes arguably provide a potentially simpler path to liability than traditional antitrust claims and authorize substantial statutory damages, fee shifting and, in some jurisdictions, recurring per-unit penalties.

RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE ALGORITHMIC LITIGATION GIVES RISE TO STATUTES AND ORDINANCES INSPIRING FOLLOW-ON CLAIMS

The new cases draw heavily on the factual record developed in the RealPage litigation, including allegations concerning the use of nonpublic competitor information and public admissions regarding particular landlords’ use of revenue-management products. A group of cases filed in July and August 2026 illustrates the emerging follow-on strategy: 

• A San Francisco tenant filed Gomez v. Greystar Management Services LLC in the Northern District of California, alleging that Greystar violated San Francisco Administrative Code § 37.10C through its alleged use of RealPage and Yardi products. The ordinance prohibits landlords from using qualifying algorithmic devices that calculate nonpublic competitor information to advise on rent or occupancy. Each month of use for each affected dwelling unit may constitute a separate violation, and tenants may seek damages, injunctive relief, and civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. S.F. Admin. Code § 37.10C(b) and (d).
• A San Diego tenant filed Keller v. UDR Inc. in the Southern District of California under San Diego Municipal Code § 98.1103, alleging that UDR improperly used RealPage products. San Diego similarly authorizes tenant suits for damages, injunctive relief and penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, with each month and affected rental property potentially constituting a separate violation. San Diego Mun. Code §§ 98.1103(b) & 98.1104(a).
• Seattle has now generated at least two similar cases. In Nicolas v. Essex Management Corp., plaintiffs allege that Essex Management, Essex Property Trust, RealPage, and Yardi violated Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 7.34 by using prohibited “coordinating services” in connection with Seattle multifamily properties. And, in Romano v. UDR Inc., plaintiffs assert a similar theory against UDR and RealPage. Seattle’s ordinance expressly prohibits specified algorithmic coordinating services and provides penalties of up to $7,500 per violation. Seattle Mun. Code ch. 7.34.040.
• In Liu v. Willow Bridge Property Company LLC and RealPage Inc., a class of Philadelphia tenants allege that Willow Bridge subscribed to and used RealPage services in violation of Philadelphia Code § 9-813. And, in Jahanbakhsh v. Greystar., a different Philadelphia tenant class alleges similar claims against Greystar. Philadelphia’s ordinance permits an aggrieved person to elect statutory damages of $2,000 per violation or treble actual damages, together with equitable relief, interest and attorney fees and costs. Phila. Code § 9-813(2)(c)(i).
• In a public enforcement action, the City of Providence filed claims against Audubon Capital Partners, LLC in Providence Municipal Court under Providence Code § 13-70, alleging that Audubon used a dynamic pricing system to coordinate rental prices at 95 Lofts in violation of the city’s ban on algorithmic rent-setting devices. The ordinance authorizes the city solicitor to bring enforcement actions and provides for civil penalties of up to $500 per day per violation, as well as costs and attorney fees in a successful enforcement action. Providence Code §§ 13-71 & 13-72.

LOCAL REGULATION IS QUICKLY EXPANDING

Municipal regulation relating to the use of algorithmic pricing tools to set rental prices in multifamily housing has developed quickly, but not uniformly. Some regulations supplement existing antitrust law, while others create landlord-specific prohibitions and direct tenant remedies. Definitions of prohibited data and services also differ, as do the availability of private actions, statutory damages, and fee shifting.

Many other municipal regulations remain pending, including in Montgomery County, Maryland; Evanston, Illinois; and Rhode Island.

WHAT THE NEW MUNICIPAL LAWS MEAN FOR EXISTING COMPLIANCE MEASURES

The new municipal cases and new regulations arise against an important backdrop: the multifamily housing industry and revenue-management vendors have already made significant changes in response to the various investigations and related legislation. Government settlements with several major property managers restrict the use of revenue-management software that relies on competitors' nonpublic information to generate rent recommendations, and various software providers have modified products to eliminate or restrict the use of competitors' nonpublic data in generating pricing recommendations. The federal government's resolution with RealPage likewise requires significant restrictions on the use of competitors' nonpublic, competitively sensitive information.

Those changes may materially reduce prospective risk under many of the new municipal ordinances, but they do not necessarily eliminate litigation over past conduct. Several local laws became effective, many prohibiting use of coordination services or software even if secured prior to the effective date of the law, while landlords and software providers were still modifying their practices, and some ordinances treat each affected unit and each month of prohibited use as a separate violation. The date on which a particular product or property ceased using prohibited data therefore becomes a critical issue in determining both liability and the scope of any putative class.

The municipal laws also place a premium on property-level documentation of software functionality. Owners and managers should be able to identify, for each covered jurisdiction, which revenue-management products were used, when relevant functionality was enabled or disabled, what data sources generated recommendations, and whether recommendations continued to rely on competitors' nonpublic information after a local prohibition became effective. Vendor representations that a product has been modified should be documented and tested against the definitions in the applicable ordinance rather than assumed to resolve compliance across jurisdictions.

These issues may also provide important defenses. A plaintiff's allegation that a landlord subscribed to RealPage, Yardi, or another revenue-management platform does not necessarily establish that every property used prohibited functionality throughout the proposed class period. Product versions, configuration changes, data sources, and effective dates may determine whether—and for how long—a particular local prohibition was implicated.

WHAT OWNERS AND PROPERTY MANAGERS SHOULD BE DOING

Owners and property managers should consider several immediate steps to understand and mitigate municipal regulation risk:

• Create an ordinance-effective-date matrix: For every affected property, match the ordinance's effective date against the dates the pricing product and particular data functionality were used.
• Test the ordinance's exclusions rather than relying on an “antitrust compliant” label: A product may satisfy a federal consent decree but still need to be assessed separately against a city's definition of “algorithmic device,” “coordinating service,” prohibited data, or permitted historical/public-data reporting.
• Identify the potential class-period cutoff now: If prohibited functionality was disabled, document the date and the properties affected. In litigation, that evidence could be important to limiting statutory penalties, narrowing a proposed class and challenging assumptions that a vendor relationship establishes continuous prohibited use.
• Evaluate legality of potentially applicable ordinances:  Many of the local ordinances are first of their kind and may be susceptible to challenging the authority of the municipality to issue the ordinance, whether it is unduly punitive, and the extent of any retroactive effect.