Jump to content

United States v RealPage Inc

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Case Information
Case name United States of America, et al. v. RealPage, Inc., et al.[1]
Court U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina[1]
Docket 1:24-cv-00710[1]
Filed August 23, 2024 (original complaint).[2] Amended complaint naming Pinnacle: January 7, 2025.[1]
Judge(s) Not identified in the sources reviewed.
Plaintiffs United States and state co-plaintiffs.[1]
Defendants RealPage and landlord defendants, including Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC.[1]
Case type Civil antitrust enforcement.[1]
Claims / issues Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2 and related state antitrust claims concerning alleged use of competitors’ nonpublic data in algorithmic rent recommendations.[3]
Status September 30, 2026: court denied RealPage and three landlord defendants’ motions to dismiss the states’ antitrust claims; litigation continues.[3] Pinnacle’s proposed settlement remains in public-comment process.[1]

United States v. RealPage, Inc. is federal antitrust litigation concerning alleged information-sharing and algorithmic rent coordination. This article covers the September 2026 proposed settlement with defendant Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC; the government's allegations are not findings of liability.[4]

Pinnacle proposed settlement

DOJ announced the proposed consent decree on September 4, 2026. If approved, it would restrict Pinnacle’s use of pricing algorithms incorporating competitors’ sensitive information and its information-sharing with other landlords, with compliance and cooperation provisions.[4]

September 18, 2026: public comment notice

The Federal Register published the proposed judgment and competitive impact statement on September 18, inviting public comments within 60 days of the notice.[1] The Tunney Act process requires public notice, consideration of comments and a court public-interest determination before entry of the proposed final judgment. Publication does not itself establish court approval.[5]

September 30, 2026 motion-to-dismiss order

On September 30, Judge William L. Osteen Jr. denied RealPage's motion to dismiss and motions by Camden, Pinnacle and Willow Bridge. The court held that the amended complaint plausibly alleged an agreement to exchange competitively sensitive landlord data for use in rent recommendations, and that its Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2 and related state-law claims could proceed. The order resolved pleading sufficiency, not liability. Motions by settled defendants Greystar and LivCor were denied as moot.[3]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Department of Justice, “United States of America, et al. v. RealPage, Inc., et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement,” 91 FR 59304–59351, September 18, 2026, notice at p. 59304.
  2. ↑ Original complaint, United States et al. v. RealPage, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00710 (M.D.N.C.), ECF 1, filed August 23, 2024, stamped pp. 1–2.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, United States v. RealPage, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-710, ECF 223, September 30, 2026, pp. 1–2, 25–33, 69–71; full 71-page order reviewed October 2, 2026.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Department of Justice, “Justice Department Reaches Proposed Consent Decree with Pinnacle, One of America’s Largest Landlords, to Resolve Information Sharing and Algorithmic Coordination Claims,” September 4, 2026.
  5. ↑ United States’ Explanation of Procedures Under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, ECF 214, filed September 4, 2026, pp. 1–4.
Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=United_States_v_RealPage_Inc&oldid=5719"