GoKawiilLawFlash Algorithmic Rent-Pricing Litigation Expands Under New State and Local Laws 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).
... continue reading