Recommended Free Tools
The U.S. Department of Justice alleges that six major landlords shared sensitive rental information through RealPage’s pricing software and related communications, helping competitors coordinate rent-setting instead of competing independently. The allegations are not a finding of wrongdoing: as of the latest procedural update on October 2, 2026, the case was allowed to proceed, but liability had not been decided.
What the lawsuit alleges
The case began in August 2024, when the Justice Department sued RealPage. DOJ alleged that landlords supplied the company with nonpublic rental rates and other lease information, and that RealPage’s software used information from participating landlords to generate pricing recommendations for subscribers. The government said landlords would otherwise compete over rents, discounts, concessions, lease terms and other conditions of apartment leasing. The original complaint alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. DOJ’s August 2024 case announcement describes that initial case.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
California Landlord's Law Book, The: Rights & Responsibilities | $34.88 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
The California Landlord's Law Book: Evictions: Evictions | $42.73 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Every Landlord's Legal Guide | $35.51 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
First-Time Landlord: Your Guide to Renting out a Single-Family Home | $21.12 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
California Tenants' Rights | $22.16 | Buy on Amazon |
In January 2025, DOJ amended its complaint to add six landlord defendants. The department alleged that competitors’ private information flowed through a common software provider and that the resulting recommendations, along with other conduct, reduced independent price competition. The landlords collectively operated more than 1.3 million units in 43 states and the District of Columbia, according to DOJ at the time. That is the agency’s description of their combined operations in January 2025, not a current portfolio count. DOJ’s amended-complaint announcement sets out the allegations and the named defendants.
How the alleged pricing scheme worked
The allegation is broader than the use of an algorithm alone. DOJ’s amended complaint described several alleged channels for sharing information and influencing pricing decisions:
#1 Best Overall
- Data supplied to RealPage: Landlords allegedly provided nonpublic information about rents and leases to the software vendor.
- Pricing recommendations: The software allegedly used participating landlords’ information to recommend prices to subscribers.
- Direct communications: DOJ alleged that senior managers communicated with one another about pricing and related business information.
- Market discussions and user groups: The complaint described recurring “call arounds” or “market surveys” and RealPage-hosted user groups. DOJ said the information discussed could include rents, renewal rates, occupancy, concessions, acceptance of software recommendations, pricing strategies and planned pricing.
The government’s theory is that these practices helped competitors align their decisions and keep rents high. California DOJ has similarly summarized the plaintiffs’ claim that RealPage’s models recommended prices using competitively sensitive subscriber data and that the alleged alignment kept prices high. Those statements describe the plaintiffs’ theory, not findings established by a court. California DOJ’s October 2026 summary explains the state’s account of the claims.
Which landlords were named
The amended complaint named the following entities. The DOJ announcement grouped Cushman & Wakefield Inc. and Pinnacle Property Management Services LLC together; those are separate legal entities identified in the complaint.
- Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC
- LivCor LLC, a Blackstone company
- Camden Property Trust
- Cushman & Wakefield Inc. and Pinnacle Property Management Services LLC
- Willow Bridge Property Company LLC
- Cortland Management LLC
Did the court find the landlords guilty?
No. In the latest procedural update covered by the cited sources, dated October 2, 2026, Oregon DOJ and California DOJ reported that a judge rejected RealPage’s effort to dismiss the lawsuit and that the claims against landlords also remained in the case. A ruling allowing claims to proceed is not a decision that RealPage or any landlord violated antitrust law. The claims still had to be resolved. Oregon DOJ’s October 2, 2026 update and California DOJ’s summary of the ruling describe the procedural result.
Settlements and proposed court orders
Some defendants have been involved in separate settlement or consent-decree developments, which do not mean every party settled or that a court found liability.
Rank #3
- Greystar and LivCor: Oregon DOJ reported an earlier settlement with Greystar and a $7 million settlement with LivCor reached by a bipartisan group of states. The $7 million is the amount Oregon DOJ reported for LivCor; it was not damages awarded after a trial. The settlements are distinct from the ongoing claims against other parties, and a settlement should not be described as an admission of liability.
- Cortland: DOJ announced a proposed consent decree with Cortland alongside the January 2025 amended complaint.
- Pinnacle: DOJ announced a proposed consent decree in September 2026. Its proposed restrictions cover certain pricing algorithms that use rivals’ sensitive data, sharing sensitive information with competitors, and participation in RealPage-hosted meetings of competing landlords. A Federal Register notice dated September 18, 2026, invited public comments within 60 days. The cited sources do not establish that the proposal received final approval.
See DOJ’s September 4, 2026 announcement about Pinnacle and the September 18, 2026 Federal Register notice for the proposed terms and comment period. Oregon DOJ’s October 2, 2026 update reports the Greystar and LivCor settlements.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What happens next
The case was still proceeding after the October 2, 2026 ruling described by the state officials. The distinction to watch is procedural: denial of a motion to dismiss keeps claims alive; it does not decide whether the alleged information sharing or pricing conduct violated antitrust law. The Pinnacle consent decree was also described in the cited materials as proposed, rather than finally approved.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
