Search for:
Antitrust / Competition

United States: Department of Justice Reaches Proposed Settlement with RealPage Pertaining to Algorithmic Pricing Tools

By , , , and 4 Mins Read

In brief

As part of a broad effort by federal antitrust enforcers to confront the increasing use of algorithmic coordination, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has announced a proposed settlement with RealPage Inc. (“RealPage”). The DOJ sued RealPage last year alleging RealPage’s revenue management software used nonpublic, competitively sensitive information shared by landlords to set rental prices in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The settlement, among other things, limits the extent to which RealPage can use active lease data to train the predictive models underlying its software.

Key takeaways

  • The DOJ and RealPage agreed to settle one of the most high-profile ongoing antitrust cases, signaling a continued enforcement focus on combatting algorithmic coordination and improper information sharing.
  • The proposed settlement targets RealPage’s use of real time nonpublic data by limiting the data RealPage is permitted to use to train its software models to historical data at least 12 months old. The proposed settlement further restricts the granularity with which RealPage can report rental pricing information with its subscribers by forbidding RealPage from providing data more narrowly than at a state-wide level.
  • The proposed settlement, which includes no financial penalties, or findings of wrongdoing, requires court approval.
  • Companies should be mindful of the models and data used in any algorithmic pricing tools they employ and should consult counsel to ensure compliance with antitrust laws.

In depth

On November 24, 2025, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division announced a proposed settlement to resolve its claims against RealPage Inc. This action is part of a broader federal enforcement effort to confront increasing use of algorithmic tools to engage in coordination, share competitively sensitive information, and pursue other potentially anticompetitive practices, including in the rental housing industry.

According to allegations in the DOJ’s complaint, RealPage’s revenue management software used nonpublic, competitively sensitive information shared by landlords to set rental prices. The Complaint alleged violations of Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act through agreements to share and use competitively sensitive information to align user landlords’ pricing processes, strategies, and pricing responses via the software. The DOJ alleged that this practice undermined independent pricing decisions among competing companies and allowed for alignment of rental prices, harming both competition and consumer choice.

The proposed consent judgment details several corrective measures that RealPage must undertake if the settlement is approved by the court.

Key Settlement Provisions

  • Real-time data: RealPage cannot use active lease data to train its algorithms–only historical or backward-looking data aged at least 12 months.
  • Geographic models: RealPage’s pricing models may not analyze geographies narrower than a state level.
  • Feature redesign: RealPage may not make identical pricing recommendations to different owners within the same geographic market, and must modify its software features to avoid limiting price decreases or aligning pricing among competing landlords.
  • Market intelligence: RealPage must not conduct, or solicit nonpublic data through market surveys for purposes of recommending pricing. Nor may they use, share, or disclose current, forward-looking data, nor the data collected through market surveys, for the use of the software.
  • Information exchange: RealPage must refrain from discussing or facilitating discussions on market analyses or trends based on nonpublic data, or pricing strategies, in meetings relating to the software.
  • Oversight: A court-appointed monitor will oversee RealPage’s compliance.
  • No financial penalties or admission of wrongdoing: No fines, or admissions of liability against RealPage.

The terms of the settlement will be effective for seven years from its entry date, but the DOJ may end it after four years if the DOJ no longer finds it necessary or in the public interest.

RealPage and its landlord clients have also faced class action litigation and separate lawsuits from attorneys general from several states, including Maryland, New Jersey, Kentucky, Washington, Arizona and the District of Columbia. Some of those actions also have settlements pending.

Conclusion

The RealPage settlement demonstrates that there are significant antitrust risks in using AI-based pricing tools where algorithms rely on competitors’ nonpublic, current data in ways that may align pricing or impact independent decision-making. Companies that subscribe to or market such pricing models should ensure they rely on only backward-looking, aged data, avoid the ingestion of competitors’ real-time pricing data, and eliminate any features that limit or discourage price decreases. Such pricing algorithms should also avoid overly granular geographic modelling that could facilitate local coordination.

Companies should consult with antitrust counsel prior to using or marketing AI pricing tools and with respect to information exchange generally.

Categories:
Author

Brian brings over 25 years of experience advising clients on all aspects of antitrust law. Known for his strategic and pragmatic approach, Brian helps clients achieve their commercial objectives while minimizing antitrust risk across a wide range of industries—including industrials, healthcare, technology, energy and infrastructure, finance, and consumer products.
Brian is particularly recognized for his ability to guide clients through complex merger clearance processes before both US and international competition authorities. He also represents third parties in antitrust investigations and provides counsel on civil non-merger and criminal enforcement matters, commercial litigation, compliance programs, risk assessments, and pricing and distribution strategies. His reputation for delivering practical solutions to high-stakes issues has made him a trusted advisor to clients navigating today’s dynamic regulatory landscape.

Author

Creighton Macy is the Chair of Baker McKenzie's North America Antitrust & Competition Practice Group. Creighton is recognized as a leading global antitrust practitioner.

Creighton has extensive experience representing clients in a wide variety of antitrust matters, including mergers and acquisitions, investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, private litigation, and counselling on issues such as antitrust compliance. Before joining the Firm, Creighton served as Chief of Staff and Senior Counsel in the DOJ Antitrust Division, working as a senior advisor to the Assistant Attorney General on civil and criminal antitrust enforcement and policy matters, as well as budget and personnel issues. During Creighton's time at the DOJ, the Antitrust Division undertook an unprecedented volume of high-profile civil and criminal matters.

Creighton began his career as a Trial Attorney in the Litigation III and Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture sections of the Antitrust Division, working on a number of notable merger and civil non-merger investigations and cases. Before rejoining the Antitrust Division as its Chief of Staff, he was a member of another global law firm's antitrust practice, where he advised clients on a wide range of US and international antitrust issues.

Creighton is consistently recognized globally for his market-leading antitrust practice with respect to high-stakes transactions, investigations, and compliance and counseling work. For example, clients have noted that Creighton “shines above the rest’ due to his first-rate cartel and merger control-related practice.’” He also regularly speaks and publishes articles relating to a variety of antitrust issues, and has been recognized many times for his contributions and thought-leadership on these issues.

Creighton is currently Co-Chair of the American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section’s Young Lawyers Task Force. In previous roles, he served as Reporter of the Presidential Transition Task Force, as well as Chair of the Trade, Sports, and Professional Associations Committee. He is highly involved in mentoring programs, including with the Antitrust Law Section, as well as Marquette University Law School, where he previously served as the DC Representative of the Alumni Board.

Creighton graduated from Marquette University, where he was an NCAA Division I Academic All-American tennis player. During his time at Marquette, he was awarded the Athletic Department’s Cura Personalis award by his peers, as well as several leadership awards. More recently, Creighton was named the Athletic Department’s Young Alumnus of the Year Award.

Author

Jeff Martino is a partner in the Firm's North America Antitrust & Competition Practice Group and National Security Practice Groups. He brings an in-depth understanding of a wide variety of white collar and fraud related matters to his antitrust litigation and investigations practice. Jeff is co-lead of the Firm's Global Cartel Task Force and represents multinational corporations and their boards and executives in high-stakes criminal and civil investigations by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and other federal and state agencies. Jeff draws upon his extensive criminal investigations, litigation, and enforcement experience to advise clients through sensitive matters pertaining to international cartel actions and white collar investigations. Prior to joining Baker McKenzie, Jeff spent nearly two decades at the DOJ and his last five years as Chief of DOJ Antitrust Division's New York Office. He also served in the U.S. Attorney Office for the District of Arizona where he was the Deputy Chief of the Public Corruption and Financial Crimes Unit. He has extensive experience as "first chair" on trials and investigations in the most complex areas of criminal antitrust, market manipulation, and consumer protection.

Author

Evan Harris is a senior associate in Baker McKenzie's North America Antitrust & Competition Practice Group, based in the Washington, DC office. He advises multinational clients on high-stakes transactions and complex antitrust matters, representing them before the US Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and state and foreign competition authorities.
Evan brings deep experience in merger enforcement and antitrust litigation, having played key roles in some of the most prominent litigated merger challenges of the past decade. His strategic counsel helps clients navigate regulatory scrutiny and litigation risk with confidence and clarity.
Prior to joining Baker McKenzie, Evan worked as an associate for an international law firm where he advised clients in matters involving merger and acquisition enforcement and antitrust litigation.

Author

Natalie Flores is the regional knowledge attorney for the Americas in Baker McKenzie’s Global Antitrust & Competition Group, based in the Firm’s Mexico City office. With over fourteen years of legal experience, she leads strategic knowledge initiatives across the Americas, including legal content development, client training, and thought leadership. Her work supports the Firm’s global competition practice and enhances client engagement through tailored insights and resources.
Natalie began her career as a litigator, focusing on consumer protection and unfair competition, including class actions under Section 5 of the FTC Act. She continues to advise clients on multijurisdictional competition matters and regulatory processes, drawing on her deep understanding of enforcement trends and cross-border dynamics.
She is actively involved in the Firm’s industry groups, particularly Energy & Infrastructure, and serves on the board of Mujeres en Energías Renovables en México (MERM), where she advocates for clean energy and gender equity in the renewable energy sector.

Related Posts