Recent litigation developments involving RealPage, Inc. (“RealPage”) leave unresolved questions about the legality of its algorithmic pricing software. The three updates include: (1) a class action settlement between plaintiff renters and defendant property owners and managers—but not defendant RealPage—for their use of RealPage’s algorithmic pricing software; (2) the DOJ’s proposed final judgment in its antitrust litigation following a settlement with RealPage; and (3) RealPage’s pending motion to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of a recent New York law banning algorithmic pricing in the rental market.
According to RealPage, its AI-powered algorithm uses non-public and public “rent pricing data” that is “aggregated and anonymized . . . from multiple sources to provide . . . [landlords] with insights when the software recommends a change in their rent.”
Class Action Litigation
In the multidistrict class action, Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. of the Middle District of Tennessee preliminarily approved 26 settlement agreements totaling $141.8 million between the plaintiff renters and defendant property owners and managers who, according to plaintiffs, used RealPage to artificially inflate the price of rental leases. In re: RealPage, Inc. Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II), No. 3:23-MD-03071, ECF No. 1313 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 1, 2025) (Order on Preliminary Approval of Settlements). RealPage itself, along with the largest of the defendant property owners and managers, has not yet settled. Id. ECF No. 1250 at 2–3 (Plaintiffs’ Declaration in Support of Class Settlements) (“Plaintiffs’ Declaration”).
The class action plaintiffs alleged that RealPage coordinated a “conspiracy to share property owners’ and managers’ sensitive pricing and supply data . . . to fix prices for multifamily housing rentals across numerous” metropolitan areas. Id. ECF. No. 1250 at 2–3 (Plaintiffs’ Declaration). The alleged conspiracy “involves the systematic sharing of confidential, non-public information, including lease transaction, pricing, and occupancy data among competitors, which RealPage then used to generate pricing recommendations that coordinated rental rates above competitive market levels.” Id. ECF No. 1247 at 2 (Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Settlements). RealPage vigorously denies these claims and argues that its customers “always have 100% discretion to accept or reject software price recommendations” and that the “software makes price recommendations in all directions—up, down, or no change—to align with property-specific objectives.”
Beyond the $141.8 million in settlement payments, the settling defendants have agreed to produce documents and data; respond to interrogatories; assist in authenticating documents at trial; and make witnesses available for depositions and at trial. Id. ECF. No. 1250 at 7 (Plaintiffs’ Declaration). Further, the settling defendants “have agreed not to provide nonpublic data to RealPage for use in competitor pricing recommendations and to refrain from using RealPage’s revenue management software that relies on non-public competitor data to make pricing recommendations.” Id. at 7–8.
DOJ Litigation
Following a settlement in the federal government’s suit against RealPage, the DOJ recently proposed a final judgement, with RealPage’s consent. U.S. v. RealPage, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00710-WLO-JLW, ECF No. 159 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 24, 2025) (“Proposed Judgement”). In its amended complaint, the DOJ had alleged that RealPage “replaces competition with coordination” because its algorithm provides landowners with “near real-time pricing recommendations” based on nonpublic financial information from competitor landowners in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and various states’ law. Id. at ECF No. 47 at 1–3, 95, 100, 102. In the proposed consent judgement, RealPage commits to cease providing its algorithmic pricing software with “current, forward-looking” financial data from landowner competitors; however, RealPage can provide its algorithm with data that is at least 12 months old and is not from active leases. Id. ECF No. 159 at 11 (Proposed Judgement). Additionally, RealPage commits to supervision by a court-approved monitor to ensure its compliance with the proposed judgement and to submit a written antitrust compliance policy to the DOJ, among other undertakings. Id. at 16–17. In the proposal, the DOJ commits to resolve its claims "without the taking of testimony...trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law," and the parties agree that the judgement will not constitute "any evidence against or admission by any party relating to any issue of fact or law." Id. at 1.
RealPage’s Affirmative Litigation
Finally, RealPage went on the offensive and filed a complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction against New York Attorney General Letitia James in the Southern District of New York. RealPage, Inc., v. James, No. 25-CV-9847, ECF No. 1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2025). RealPage alleges that a new state law prohibiting a “‘residential rental property owner [to] adjust rental prices, lease renewals . . . based on recommendations from a software, data analytics services, or algorithmic device’” violates the First Amendment. Id. at 11–12 (quoting N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 340-b)). RealPage alleges that this provision violates the First Amendment because it constitutes content-, viewpoint-, and speaker-based restrictions. As of this writing, RealPage’s lawsuit is ongoing, and the parties’ briefing for RealPage’s preliminary injunction and the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss are due February 27, 2026.
Given these developments, the future of algorithmic pricing remains uncertain. While it continues to face exposure in the class action and appears poised to make concessions to the DOJ by limiting the data its algorithm can use, RealPage has begun taking affirmative litigation steps to protect its algorithmic pricing software by alleging that a categorical ban of its software runs afoul of constitutional protections.
