As 2026 begins, enforcement actions and private litigation involving algorithmic pricing and information-sharing arrangements remain active. Agencies and courts continue to test how traditional antitrust principles apply to pricing tools and data-driven coordination theories. New state legislation has gone into effect in California and New York, adding a layer of uncertainty for providers and users of revenue management software and related tools.

State of Play

DOJ Settles Algorithmic Price-Fixing Claims Against RealPage, United States v. RealPage, 24-cv-00710 (M.D.N.C.); In re RealPage, Inc. Rental Software Antitrust Litig. (No. II), 23-md-3071 (M.D. Tenn.)

  • In late November 2025, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and RealPage notified the court that they had reached a settlement. The settlement and dismissal of DOJ’s claims are subject to public notice and comment, as well as court approval under the Tunney Act. The proposed settlement focuses on limiting RealPage’s use of non-public, competitively sensitive information, providing a roadmap for similarly situated providers seeking to reduce antitrust risk associated with their algorithmic pricing tools.
  • In December 2025, the fourth of six landlord defendants—LivCor LLC—entered a proposed settlement with DOJ. Only DOJ’s claims against Cushman and Willow Bridge remain live. Motions to dismiss, fully briefed since June 2025, are pending.
  • Nine state attorneys general continue to litigate their claims against five defendants, having settled with Greystar Management. Greystar has, among other things, agreed to stop using RealPage and cooperate in the states’ monopolization claims against RealPage. According to disclosures filed in connection with RealPage’s settlement with DOJ, RealPage sought to resolve the state claims, but there is no indication that RealPage has reached settlement with the states.
  • Private plaintiffs in the multi-district litigation in Tennessee also reached a settlement, valued at $141.8 million, with twenty-six landlords that allegedly used RealPage’s software. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on November 21, 2025.

Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing of Dismissal of Challenge to Hotels’ Use of Shared Revenue-Management Software, Gibson v. Cendyn Group, LLC, 91 F.4th 1130 (9th Cir. 2025)

  • In November 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, leaving in place the August 2025 panel decision affirming dismissal of antitrust claims challenging hotels’ use of shared revenue-management software.
  • Plaintiff has until February 12, 2026, to file a petition for certiorari, presenting an opportunity for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the proper application of antitrust laws in this context.

Rouse and Construction Equipment Rental Companies Move to Dismiss Challenge to Use of Rouse’s Benchmarking Services, In re Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, 1:25-cv-03487 (N.D. Ill.)

  • On January 9, 2026, defendants Rouse and construction equipment rental companies moved to dismiss a class action challenging their use of Rouse’s data analytics platform to set heavy equipment rental prices. Relying in part on Gibson,they argue that Rouse uses historical, aggregated data to generate price ranges—rather than specific recommended prices that users cannot reject.
  • Plaintiffs’ opposition is due in March 2026, and Defendants’ replies in April 2026.

DOJ Opposes Summary Judgment in Meat Industry Benchmarking Case, United States v. Agri-Stats, 23-cv-3009 (D. Minn.)

  • In November 2025, DOJ opposed summary judgment in its information-sharing case against Agri-Stats.
  • DOJ also moved to set trial on the DOJ’s claims for May 4, 2026, thereby leapfrogging private litigants in In re Pork Antitrust Litigation, 18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD (D. Minn.).

Yardi Moves for Summary Judgment in Case Alleging Software-Facilitated Collusion Among Landlords, In re Yardi Revenue Management Antitrust Litigation, 23-cv-1391 (W.D. Wash.)

  • After prevailing on summary judgment in California state court, Yardi Systems moved for summary judgment in the related federal litigation, relying on the same source-code evidence that the state court credited as incapable of sharing software users’ competitively sensitive information, and therefore, incapable of doing what plaintiffs alleged—collecting user data to be pooled and used to generate price recommendations. Briefing is expected to conclude in early 2026.

Cases to Watch

  • Other cases involving pricing or market-analytics tools, including matters involving Optimal Blue (pricing and business analytics tool for mortgage originators), Zelis (healthcare reimbursement rate recommendation tool), and Urner Barry (pricing platform for egg producers), are in the early stages of litigation but remain relevant to the development of algorithmic coordination theories.
    • In Optimal Blue, plaintiffs intend to file an amended complaint in February. The parties have stipulated to a limited stay on discovery with motions to dismiss due in April 2026.
    • In Urner Barry, there is a pending motion to consolidate the various cases to be heard by the multi-district panel on January 29. Assuming the cases are consolidated, the receiving court likely will set a schedule for consolidated complaints and motion to dismiss briefing.
    • In Zelis, motions to dismiss and compel arbitration have been briefed since October 2025. The court heard arguments on January 16, 2026 and intends to issue a ruling on the motions within one month.

Issues to Watch in 2026

  • More Legislation Targeting Algorithmic Pricing: In 2025, several states and cities proposed new measures targeting algorithmic pricing, signaling continued legislative momentum. At the federal level, House Republicans spearheaded an effort to curtail the use of common pricing formulas or algorithms by colleges and universities in October, and Democrats reintroduced the End Rent Fixing Act of 2025 in November.  Bipartisan concern over affordability and a desire to preempt a patchwork of state laws could drive Congress to act in 2026. 
  • Challenges to State-Level Algorithmic Pricing Laws Slow Enforcement: At the end of 2025, RealPage filed a constitutional challenge to New York’s restrictions on rental-pricing software in RealPage, Inc. v. James, No. 25-cv-9847 (S.D.N.Y.). The district court stayed enforcement of the law as applied to RealPage and its customers while the court considers a preliminary injunction. New York moved to dismiss and oppose the motion for a preliminary injunction, contending that rental-pricing algorithms facilitate anticompetitive hub-and-spoke arrangements and inflate rents.  This is not the first time RealPage has filed suit to halt algorithmic pricing legislation: In April 2025, RealPage challenged Berkeley’s ordinance banning the use of algorithmic rent-setting tools. Berkeley has suspended the ordinance’s effective date until March 1, 2026, pending resolution of the challenge. Providers of revenue management software and similar tools may consider similar injunctive relief in other jurisdictions as new state and local laws are poised to take effect.
  • Increased Regulation and Enforcement at the State Level: In 2025, several states dialed up efforts to protect competition independently of federal enforcement. States grew their capacity: Minnesota and New Jersey established dedicated antitrust divisions; New York added enforcers; and Washington and Colorado established their own merger review regimes. At the same time, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) saw an 11% budget reduction, and staffing at the DOJ’s Antitrust Division declined. Against this backdrop, state enforcers are positioned to broaden their role in shaping the algorithmic pricing litigation agenda.
  • Algorithmic Pricing Enforcement Focus on Pocketbook Issues: The latest funding measure for the FTC directs the agency to report to Congress on retail competition in the food, pharmacy, and grocery sectors. The use of algorithmic pricing software in these industries may soon be under the microscope.

Guidelines for Assessing and Mitigating Antitrust Risk

Below are some of the key issues we have seen emerge as we monitor these areas of the law and some questions you might consider asking about the software provided or used by your business.

ISSUE QUESTIONS
Inputs: Tools that rely on public, lagged, and/or anonymized data tend to be less risky than tools that rely on confidential, current data from competitors. If a tool uses nonpublic information, companies should be attentive to whether there is a risk that they can access competitors’ confidential data (and vice-versa).
  • What data is used?
  • Is the data public or nonpublic?
  • Is the company providing or receiving nonpublic commercially sensitive information?
  • How current is the data?
  • What data is available to participants?
  • Is data from competitors segregated? Are competitors’ data pooled—either for training an algorithm, to generate recommendations, or for some other reason?
Independence: Ensuring that pricing recommendations are nonbinding reduces antitrust risk.
  • What are the terms of use?
  • Are settings customizable? Are competitors’ settings shared (directly or indirectly)?
  • What is the output?
  • Are there recommendations? If so, what are they—prices, commercial terms, or benchmarks?
  • Are recommendations binding, or can individuals deviate from them?
  • How often do deviations occur in practice?
Marketing: Public statements touting a tool’s ability to discipline, optimize, or otherwise increase prices or revenues across an industry can be problematic.
  • How is the tool marketed and distributed? As a means to increase profitability? For disciplining sales and pricing?
  • How widely is the tool used in the industry?
  • Does the company know if its competitors are using it? Would the company use it regardless?
Business Rationale: Ideally, there are documented procompetitive bases for using the tool, such as increasing efficiency or lowering prices for customers.
  • What are the company’s expectations or reason for using the tool?
  • What benefits has the tool led to in practice?