Algorithmic Rent-Pricing Litigation Expands Under New State and Local Laws

LawFlash August 21, 2026 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. Jurisdiction Ordinance Status/Principal Feature San Francisco, CA S.F. Admin. Code § 37.10C (effective October 2024) Prohibits qualifying algorithmic devices using nonpublic competitor data; private tenant claims and up to $1,000 per violation, with unit/month exposure; now at issue in Gomez v. Greystar Management Services, LLC (N.D. Cal.) San Diego, CA San Diego Mun. Code §§ 98.1101–98.1104 (effective June 2025) Similar prohibition and private remedy of up to $1,000 per violation; now at issue in Keller v. UDR Inc., (S.D. Cal.). Berkeley, CA Berkeley Mun. Code ch. 13.63 (effective January 2026) Prohibits coordinated pricing algorithms; recurring unit/month violations and private remedies, previously at issue in RealPage, Inc. v. City of Berkeley et al., (N.D. Cal.) (voluntarily dismissed with prejudice Jan. 14, 2026). Santa Ana, CA Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-3090 (effective April 2, 2026) Ordinance NS-3090 prohibits specified anticompetitive automated rent price-fixing; private tenant claims and up to $1,000 per violation and per month. Philadelphia, PA Phila. Code § 9-813 (effective February 2025) Private remedies include treble actual damages or $2,000 per violation; now at issue in Liu v. Willow Bridge Property Co., et al., (Phila. C.P.). Minneapolis, MN Minneapolis Code of Ordinances § 244.2070 (effective March 2026) Effective March 1, 2026. Prohibits algorithmic devices using nonpublic competitor data to advise on vacancy or rental rates; tenants may pursue civil actions. Providence, RI Providence Code of Ordinances ch. 13, art. X, §§ 13-69–13-73 (effective May 2025) Prohibits the use of rent-setting algorithms; the city expressly linked the measure to software such as RealPage; now at issue in City of Providence v. Audubon Capital Partners, LLC, (Providence Mun. Ct.). Jersey City, NJ Jersey City Code § 218-12 (effective June 2025) Prohibits a landlord’s use of algorithmic rent coordination services; includes public and private enforcement; fines up to $2,000 per day. Hoboken, NJ Hoboken City Code, ch. 158-2 (effective July 2025) Prohibits landlords from using software, algorithms or data-sharing platforms to coordinate or recommend rents, lease terms, or occupancy. Seattle, WA Seattle Mun. Code ch. 7.34 (effective July 2025) Prohibits specified coordinating services; penalties may reach $7,500 per violation; now at issue in Nicolas v. Essex Management Corp., et al., (W.D. Wash.) and Romano v. UDR, Inc., et al. (W.D. Wash.). King County, WA King County Code ch. 12.23 (effective October 2025) Injured renters may seek actual damages, up to $7,500 per violation and attorney fees. Spokane, WA Spokane Mun. Code § 10.57.180 (effective January 2026) Prohibits landlords from purchasing algorithmic coordinating services; city enforcement includes civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation. Portland, OR Portland City Code § 30.01.088 (effective February 2026) Prohibits algorithm-assisted rental price coordination; for owners of 16 or more units, private remedies include the greater of treble damages or $1,000 per violation. Rockville, MD Rockville City Code § 18-148 (effective January 1, 2027) Prohibits landlords from using algorithmic devices and shared competitor information to set rent, fees, or other rental terms. 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.