Agreement Limits Greystar’s Use of RealPage Revenue Software and Data Sharing in Multifamily Rental Market
Greystar Management Services, one of the nation’s largest property management firms, has agreed to resolve the government’s allegations that its use of RealPage’s algorithmic pricing software violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibiting companies from engaging in anticompetitive schemes. The settlement imposes strict limitations on Greystar’s use of revenue management software and data-sharing practices in the multifamily rental market (United States v. Greystar Management Services, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00710, M.D. N.C.).
This settlement follows that involving Greystar co-defendant, Cortland Management LLC, manager of 80,000 properties. Cortland was the first of six defendants to settle. Read our post.
Greystar is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina. It specializes in the management and ownership of multifamily rental properties, operating through its subsidiaries, divisions, and affiliates, to manage properties across the U.S. and its territories.
The case centers on Greystar’s use of RealPage’s Revenue Management Products, which allegedly facilitated anticompetitive conduct by pooling competitively sensitive data from multiple property managers and owners. RealPage, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Richardson, Texas, is also facing separate litigation in United States et al. v. RealPage et al., No. 1:24-cv-00710 (M.D. N.C.), for its role in developing and deploying algorithmic pricing tools that allegedly suppressed competition in rental pricing.
Algorithmic pricing, a key issue in the case, involves the use of software to analyze market data and recommend rental prices. RealPage’s software reportedly aggregated nonpublic data from competing property managers, including executed rents, occupancy rates, and lease terms, to generate pricing recommendations. Critics argue that this practice reduced competition by enabling property managers to align rental prices, effectively creating a coordinated pricing environment without direct communication.
GREYSTAR’S PROHIBITIONS
Under the Final Judgment, Greystar is prohibited from using revenue management software that relies on external nonpublic data or incentivizes acceptance of algorithmically generated rental price recommendations. Specifically, Greystar must not:
1) License or use software that pools nonpublic data from competitors or uses such data in its runtime operation to generate rental prices.
2) Share or solicit nonpublic data from other property managers or owners, whether through software, surveys, or other means.
3) Participate in RealPage meetings, such as steering committees or user groups, which allegedly facilitated the exchange of competitively sensitive information.
The judgment also requires Greystar to implement an antitrust compliance program, designate an antitrust compliance officer, and provide annual training to employees. Additionally, Greystar must cooperate with ongoing litigation against RealPage, including making employees available for interviews and providing relevant documents.
The settlement reflects broader concerns about the use of algorithmic pricing tools in the rental market. While such tools are marketed as a way to optimize pricing based on market conditions, their reliance on aggregated data from competitors raises antitrust questions.
Courts are increasingly receptive to the argument that algorithmic coordination can produce anticompetitive outcomes similar to traditional price-fixing, even without direct communication between competitors.
In its Artificial Intelligence Litigation Roundup, the firm highlights how pricing algorithms are becoming central to antitrust investigations, particularly in real estate, hospitality, and e-commerce. The roundup points to the RealPage litigation as a bellwether for future enforcement, emphasizing how shared pricing tools can facilitate hub-and-spoke collusion.
Meanwhile, Big Tech’s Decade of A.I. Shopping explores how dominant tech firms have consolidated control over AI infrastructure, including pricing tools, through acquisitions and strategic partnerships. This consolidation raises concerns about reduced transparency, market exclusion, and the potential for coordinated price inflation across industries. The post links to the interactive AI Deal Table which chronicles major AI acquisitions and investments since 2012.
The Greystar case is not an isolated incident. In the past 45 days, regulators have intensified scrutiny of similar practices. Updates in the Yardi litigation suggest courts may apply a “per se” illegality standard to algorithmic pricing schemes, signaling tougher enforcement. Investigations into pricing coordination in the hotel sector and e-commerce platforms continue to surface, with regulators examining whether shared use of AI tools constitutes unlawful collusion.
These cases collectively signal a shift in antitrust enforcement, where the use of shared AI tools to set prices is no longer viewed merely as innovative efficiency—but as a potential violation of competition law with real consumer harm.
Edited by Tom Hagy for Mogin Law LLP.
