Digging Into the Justice Department’s Lawsuit Against Major Landlords

[Chris Magistrado]

As someone fascinated by the intersection of housing, technology, and fairness, I couldn’t ignore the Justice Department’s latest lawsuit against six of the largest landlords in the country. It’s not every day that accusations of rent manipulation make headlines, and I wanted to understand how this impacts the millions of Americans struggling with housing costs. So, I dove in.

The first thing that stood out to me was the scale of the issue. The Justice Department, backed by 10 states, claims these landlords—who manage over 1.3 million rental units across 43 states and D.C.—used algorithms and insider information to keep rents artificially high. Let that sink in. The very systems meant to streamline rental pricing may have been weaponized to squeeze even more from people already stretched thin.

It’s hard to ignore the context. In 2022, half of American renters spent over 30% of their income on rent and utilities, the highest percentage ever recorded. I’ve seen countless stories of families choosing between groceries and rent, or parents juggling eviction notices while trying to shield their children from the stress. It’s heartbreaking.

Connecting the Dots

My research led me to RealPage, a tech company at the center of this controversy. According to the Justice Department, RealPage’s algorithm allows landlords to align rents with their competitors by analyzing sensitive data, from renewal rates to occupancy trends. The result? Reduced competition and higher prices for renters.

RealPage, of course, denies this. A spokesperson argued their software only affects a small slice of the market and isn’t solely to blame for high rents. They pointed to housing shortages as the real villain. It’s a fair point—housing construction has lagged for years—but does that excuse using tech to potentially exploit renters?

The landlords aren’t staying silent either. Greystar Real Estate Partners, one of the defendants, released a public statement claiming they operate with “utmost integrity” and will vigorously fight the allegations. But the lawsuit reveals details that are hard to ignore: emails, phone calls, and even group meetings allegedly used to share strategies for keeping rents high. It’s a lot to unpack.

On the Ground Impact

As I dug deeper, I couldn’t stop thinking about the human impact. Families forced to uproot their lives, children experiencing the trauma of eviction, and homelessness rates breaking records year after year. Princeton University’s Eviction Lab estimates 1.5 million Americans face eviction annually. That’s a staggering number—and one that keeps climbing.

I came across a proposed settlement with one of the landlords already cooperating with prosecutors. If approved, it would limit how they use competitors' data and algorithms. It’s a start, but will it be enough to truly make a difference?

Why This Matters

This lawsuit feels like a turning point. The Justice Department’s acting assistant attorney general, Doha Mekki, put it bluntly: this case is about ending the practice of “putting profits over people.” That resonated with me. Housing isn’t just another commodity; it’s a basic need, and it’s disturbing to think of families losing homes while corporations chase higher margins.

For now, I’m left wondering what this case will reveal as it moves forward. Will it expose systemic greed, or will it shift the blame to other factors like housing shortages? Either way, it’s a stark reminder of how technology, when unchecked, can amplify inequality.

What Do You Think?

As I piece this all together, I can’t help but feel we’re standing at a crossroads. Will this lawsuit truly bring relief to renters, or is it just a Band-Aid on a much deeper wound? How do you think we can strike a balance between corporate innovation and human dignity in housing?

[Russell Brazil]

The DOJ is ridiculous.  All pricing of rental prices is done with data.  When an individual landlord prices their rental, they do based on what the other ones in the neighborhood have rented for.  When a real estate licensee does it, they look at the data, and recommend a price based on that data. Most states require them to produce a report with that data to give to the client.

So why is having an algorithm look at the rental data illegal, but an individual person look at the data not?

And large landlords often use dynamic pricing based on an algorithm.   So is it equally illegal when the large landlords drop rental prices in a building as vacancy increases and the market softens? These algorithms go both ways. Sometimes they raise prices based on the data, and sometimes they drop those same prices, even dramatically, when the data says to do so.