A court denied RealPage’s attempt to have Connecticut’s antitrust case dismissed, allowing the lawsuit to continue. The complaint alleges that RealPage used landlords’ nonpublic, competitively sensitive rental data in an algorithm to recommend prices and that its practices inflated rents; no penalty or final remedy against RealPage is reported.
No final remedy was imposed on RealPage. The lawsuit continues, and the state seeks an order stopping the company and property managers from sharing nonpublic information and working together to inflate rents.
Review vendor and property-management agreements involving pricing software, especially data-processing and permitted-use clauses, confidentiality terms, and restrictions on sharing or using nonpublic data from other landlords or competitors. Check whether contracts allow a vendor to aggregate customer data, generate or distribute pricing recommendations, or encourage automatic acceptance of algorithmic recommendations; consider express limits, transparency and audit rights, and antitrust compliance obligations. Customer agreements should also clearly describe data use and pricing functions, while employee policies should address access to and handling of competitively sensitive information.
Entity
RealPage, Inc.
Industry
Real Estate"Connecticut, the U.S. Department of Justice, and a coalition of states sued RealPage in 2024."
"The lawsuit alleges that the software company used landlords’ competitively sensitive data to create a pricing algorithm that violated antitrust laws and raised rent prices."
"That data included information about rental units coming on the market, rent prices property managers were charging, and discounts they were offering."
"will continue after a court ruled in favor of Connecticut and denied the software company’s attempts to have the case thrown out."
"The lawsuit against RealPage asks the court to stop the company and the property managers it works with from sharing non-public information and working together to inflate rent prices."
An Oregon judge rejected RealPage’s attempt to have the state’s rent-pricing lawsuit dismissed, allowing the case to move forward. Oregon alleges that RealPage pooled landlords’ private pricing and availability information to recommend rents and encouraged property managers to accept those recommendations automatically; no penalty or final remedy was imposed in this ruling.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong announced that Home Depot had voluntarily provided assistance to Wren Kitchen customers after Wren filed for bankruptcy and consumers reported unfinished projects and undelivered products. Home Depot had assisted 286 customers with $1.235 million in relief and offered further help through October 31; the release does not describe a formal penalty or privacy violation.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a coalition of states and local governments in filing suit against NHTSA over its rule weakening fuel economy standards for new passenger cars and light trucks. The lawsuit alleges the rule violates the agency’s statutory mandate and the Administrative Procedure Act; no penalty or final remedy is reported.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a multistate coalition suing the EPA over its repeal of greenhouse gas pollution limits for power plants and separately filed a notice of intent to sue over regulation of existing gas plants. The coalition asks the court to overturn the repeal and restore the protections; the release reports no monetary penalty or final order.
$400.0M
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong announced a $400 million settlement with Sandoz Inc. and Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. resolving allegations that the generic drug manufacturers conspired to inflate prices, limit competition, and restrain trade. The settlement includes consumer restitution and injunctive reforms; court approval was being sought.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing a DHS rule that allows certain affirmative asylum applications to be referred to removal proceedings without an asylum officer interview. The coalition argues the rule violates federal law and harms asylum seekers, including unaccompanied children; this was a policy opposition letter, not a privacy enforcement action.