America’s largest landlord has just paid $7 million to settle allegations that it used artificial intelligence to coordinate rent increases with competitors—a digital price-fixing scheme that prosecutors say has cost renters billions. Greystar Management Services, which controls nearly 950,000 apartments nationwide, allegedly fed sensitive pricing data into algorithmic software that helped competing landlords synchronize rent hikes across entire cities.
On November 18, 2025, a bipartisan coalition of nine states, led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, announced a landmark settlement, calling it a watershed moment in the fight against algorithmic collusion that’s driving America’s housing affordability crisis.
Greystar’s Market Dominance and Alleged Misconduct
Greystar manages nearly 950,000 rental units nationwide, making it the largest apartment manager in the United States.
The settlement alleges that Greystar participated in a price-fixing scheme by using RealPage Inc.’s algorithmic pricing software to coordinate rent increases with competing landlords rather than setting prices independently. This practice allegedly violated antitrust laws designed to protect consumers from collusive pricing arrangements.
How the Algorithmic System Worked
Prosecutors allege that Greystar and other landlords shared highly sensitive, nonpublic data with RealPage’s pricing algorithms, including actual rental rates, lease terms, discounts, occupancy rates, and unit characteristics.
The software then analyzed this pooled confidential information to generate daily pricing recommendations that allegedly helped landlords coordinate rent increases across entire metropolitan markets. This effectively replaced independent pricing decisions with centralized pricing recommendations designed to maximize revenue collectively rather than competitively.
Direct Landlord Communication Intensified Scheme
Beyond merely using the software, the complaint alleges that Greystar and competing landlords discussed “pricing strategies, rent levels, and parameters for RealPage’s software directly with one another”.
These direct communications allegedly reduced competitive pressure and drove rents higher than free market conditions would otherwise dictate. State attorneys general characterized this behavior as transforming competitors into co-conspirators through technology-enabled collusion.
Nine-State Coalition Takes Action
The settlement involves attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, and Tennessee. These states jointly filed the proposed consent decree in federal court in North Carolina on November 19, 2025.
The bipartisan nature of the coalition underscores widespread concern about algorithmic rent manipulation transcending political divisions.
Settlement Financial Terms and Distribution
Under the proposed agreement, which requires court approval, Greystar will pay $7 million in penalties to the participating states.
Massachusetts will receive approximately $621,988 of this settlement. Minnesota’s share is approximately $483,000. The remaining funds will be distributed among the other seven states based on impact assessments and resident populations affected by the alleged price-fixing scheme.
Operational Restrictions Imposed on Greystar
Beyond monetary penalties, the settlement imposes strict operational constraints on Greystar’s business practices. The company must permanently refrain from using any algorithm that generates pricing recommendations based on competitors’ sensitive nonpublic data or incorporates anticompetitive features.
Greystar is also prohibited from sharing competitively sensitive information with competing landlords through any mechanism.
Court-Appointed Monitor Will Oversee Compliance
The consent decree requires Greystar to accept a court-appointed monitor if the company uses third-party pricing algorithms not certified under the agreement.
Additionally, Greystar must identify an antitrust compliance officer to the states within 30 days of the entry of the consent judgment. These oversight mechanisms ensure long-term compliance with competitive market standards.
Ban on RealPage-Facilitated Industry Meetings
Greystar is specifically forbidden from attending or participating in RealPage-hosted meetings of competing landlords. Such gatherings allegedly provided venues for discussing competitively sensitive topics, including pricing strategies and rent levels.
This prohibition aims to prevent future coordination through industry forums that could facilitate collusive behavior.
Cooperation Required in Ongoing RealPage Prosecution
As part of the settlement, Greystar must cooperate with the states’ ongoing monopolization claims against RealPage. This cooperation requirement mirrors a separate agreement Greystar reached with the U.S. Department of Justice in August 2025.
The coordinated approach ensures that evidence gathered strengthens the broader case against the software provider, enabling the alleged scheme.
RealPage Controls 80 Percent of Market
RealPage dominates the commercial revenue management software market, controlling approximately 80% of the market share.
The company’s YieldStar and AIRM products analyze data to provide landlords with daily pricing recommendations. RealPage’s substantial market position allegedly solidifies its role as a centralized pricing authority for large portions of the nation’s rental markets.
Software Features Discourage Independent Pricing
RealPage’s AIRM and YieldStar algorithms include auto-accept functions that automatically accept price recommendations falling within certain parameters, making compliance the default path requiring no landlord action.
When landlords attempt to decline recommendations, they must provide written justifications that are reviewed by designated RealPage “pricing advisors,” who monitor compliance. If the pricing advisor disagrees with the landlord’s justification, they can escalate the matter to the property manager’s supervisor, who RealPage often pressures to accept the software’s price recommendations.
Estimated $70 Monthly Impact on Renters
According to the White House Council of Economic Advisers, algorithmic pricing adds an average of $70 per month to rent costs in buildings that use these systems. This surcharge cost American renters more than $3.8 billion in 2023 alone.
Research suggests that markets with higher algorithm penetration experience elevated rents and lower occupancy rates, with some estimates indicating overcharges of 12-13 percent.
Attorney General Rayfield Denounces Price-Fixing
“When the largest landlord in America uses an algorithm to price fix the rent, the result is simple: people pay more,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield stated.
He emphasized that the scheme “squeezes working families when the cost of housing is already at an all-time high”. Rayfield, who became Oregon’s Attorney General on January 1, 2025, after serving as Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, specializes in consumer protection cases.
Broader Legal Actions Against Algorithmic Pricing
This settlement is part of a nationwide litigation involving algorithmic rent pricing. Greystar separately agreed in October 2025 to pay $50 million to settle a class-action lawsuit with renters regarding its use of RealPage.
In total, 26 property management companies collectively operating more than 1.3 million units have reached settlements exceeding $141 million in the Tennessee multidistrict litigation.
Federal Lawsuit Against RealPage Continues
The U.S. Department of Justice, joined by ten states, filed an amended complaint in January 2025, expanding its August 2024 antitrust lawsuit against RealPage to include six major landlords.
These companies—Greystar, Blackstone’s LivCor, Camden Property Trust, Cushman & Wakefield/Pinnacle, Willow Bridge Property Company, and Cortland Management—collectively operate over 1.3 million residential units across 43 states. The case against RealPage and the remaining defendants continues as prosecutors pursue claims of monopolization.
States and Cities Pass Algorithmic Pricing Bans
Legislative bodies nationwide are taking action against rent-setting algorithms. California and New York enacted laws in October 2025 banning algorithmic rent-setting tools that use competitors’ data. Seattle passed similar legislation in July 2025, which became effective on August 1, 2025. King County followed suit in September 2025.
Portland is considering an ordinance to ban such software. These legislative measures complement enforcement actions by creating statutory prohibitions.
Housing Affordability Crisis Intensifies Urgency
The settlement addresses practices occurring amid an unprecedented housing affordability crisis. Fifty percent of all American renters—22.6 million households—were cost-burdened in 2023, spending more than 30% of their income on housing.
The median asking rent for new apartments completed in late 2024 was $1,900, while asking rents in the professionally managed apartment sector rose only 0.8 percent year-over-year in the first quarter of 2025.
Colorado Attorney General Warns Against Collusion
“Coloradans are struggling to pay monthly rent. When corporate landlords share private data and use algorithms to coordinate and jack up rent prices, renters pay the price,” Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser stated.
He emphasized that “this settlement sends a clear message: we will not tolerate practices that enable collusion, harm competition, and make housing less affordable”. His comments reflect growing state-level determination to address algorithmic coordination that achieves traditional cartel outcomes.
Precedent for Future Algorithmic Antitrust Enforcement
The Greystar settlement establishes important precedents for regulating algorithmic pricing across industries beyond the rental housing sector. By imposing permanent limitations on algorithm use and data sharing, the agreement aims to restore competitive market dynamics, where companies can set prices independently.
As federal prosecutors have described it, the case represents “the new frontier” of antitrust enforcement, adapting competition law to address algorithmic coordination, achieving the same anticompetitive effects as traditional cartels.