JavaScript is turned off in your web browser.Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.
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.
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 theRealPagelitigation. 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.
The new cases draw heavily on the factual record developed in theRealPagelitigation, 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:
Municipal regulation relating to the use of algorithmic pricing tools to set rental prices in multifamily housing has developed quickly, but not uniformly. Some regulations supplement existing antitrust law, while others create landlord-specific prohibitions and direct tenant remedies. Definitions of prohibited data and services also differ, as do the availability of private actions, statutory damages, and fee shifting.
S.F. Admin. Code § 37.10C (effective October 2024)
Prohibits qualifying algorithmic devices using nonpublic competitor data; private tenant claims and up to $1,000 per violation, with unit/month exposure; now at issue inGomez v. Greystar Management Services, LLC (N.D. Cal.)
San Diego Mun. Code §§ 98.1101–98.1104 (effective June 2025)
Similar prohibition and private remedy of up to $1,000 per violation; now at issue inKeller v. UDR Inc.,(S.D. Cal.).
Berkeley Mun. Code ch. 13.63 (effective January 2026)
Prohibits coordinated pricing algorithms; recurring unit/month violations and private remedies, previously at issue inRealPage, Inc. v. City of Berkeley et al., (N.D. Cal.) (voluntarily dismissed with prejudice Jan. 14, 2026).
Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-3090 (effective April 2, 2026)