Recent developments in litigation and public policies portend continued scrutiny of algorithmic pricing tools and revenue/data management software.

Litigation Updates

Court Sustains Price-Fixing Claims Against RealPage and New Jersey Landlords, but Dismisses Claims Against AvalonBay, New Jersey v. RealPage, Inc., No. 25-cv-3057 (D.N.J.)

  • On March 31, 2026, the court largely denied motions to dismiss the New Jersey Attorney General’s price-fixing case against RealPage and defendant landlords, allowing antitrust claims to proceed against all defendants except AvalonBay.
  • Similar to other RealPage cases, the New Jersey Attorney General alleges a hub-and-spoke price-fixing conspiracy, whereby landlords (the spokes) coordinated through RealPage’s software (the hub) to share confidential information and increase prices.
  • The district court found a plausible agreement based on landlords’ simultaneous usage, even though landlords may have used different RealPage products or signed up at different times, and the allegation that landlords almost always accept pricing recommendations due to RealPage’s alleged compliance monitoring, override restrictions, auto-accept features and disciplinary reporting.
  • The court dismissed claims against landlord AvalonBay as implausible because unique data-restriction provisions in its contract prohibited RealPage from using other landlords’ data to generate AvalonBay’s prices and vice versa.

Federal Yardi Plaintiffs Oppose Summary Judgment, Move to Proceed with Discovery and Proceed on Theory of Collusion Via Yardi Technical Account Managers, Not Software, In re Yardi Revenue Management Antitrust Litig., No. 23-cv-1391 (W.D. Wash.)

  • As previously reported, after prevailing in state court, defendant Yardi Systems moved for summary judgment on analogous federal court claims. Yardi again pointed to evidence that its source code does not and cannot pool users’ competitively sensitive information.
  • In March 2026, plaintiffs filed a cross-motion to proceed with discovery. Although the first phase of discovery centered on Yardi’s source code, plaintiffs appear to have obtained notes from meetings between Yardi consultants, which plaintiffs contend show the consultants urging landlords to increase prices based on market circumstances. Yardi disputes this and claims plaintiffs are impermissibly changing their theory of the case.

Court Allows Claim Against Zelis and Healthcare Payors to Proceed, In re: Zelis Repricing Antitrust Litig., No. 25-cv-10734 (D. Mass.)

  • On March 30, 2026, in another case challenging use of a healthcare reimbursement rate tool, the court denied motions to dismiss, finding that the healthcare provider plaintiffs plausibly alleged a horizontal conspiracy and, in the alternative, a hub-and-spoke conspiracy among healthcare payors and Zelis to fix prices for out-of-network services.
  • The court largely followed the reasoning of the similar case against MultiPlan and found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged an agreement based on parallel conduct (use of Zelis’ repricing tools) and plus factors (actions against self-interest, e.g., using Zelis’ tools where uncoordinated adoption could risk subscriber loss; sharing competitively sensitive information with competitors; and being motivated to conspire to avoid legal and public relations scrutiny by using a third-party to develop a repricing tool).
  • The court denied Humana’s separate motion to dismiss, in which Humana argued that the complaint failed to allege when Humana joined the conspiracy and that it withdrew from the market in 2024. The court rejected these arguments, noting that the complaint alleged that Humana used Zelis’ repricing tools and that any withdrawal did not negate its participation.

Settlements

 DOJ and Agri-Stats Reach Sweeping Settlement on Eve of Trial, United States v. Agri-Stats, Inc., No. 23-cv-3009 (D. Minn.)

  • On May 7, 2026, the DOJ and Agri-Stats reached a settlement and filed a proposed judgment and consent decree with the district court. If the court approves, the consent decree would run for 10 years, sharply limit the data that Agri-Stats can collect, maintain and distribute, and impose additional obligations on Agri-Stats to ensure data recipients cannot reverse-engineer competitors’ confidential data or use it to coordinate on price or output.
  • Agri-Stats may not collect, maintain or distribute any non-public sales data except for internal use by Agri-Stats’ audit team or to report to the data’s owner. Any data maintained under these exceptions must be anonymized and inaccessible to Agri-Stats’ account managers.
  • Agri-Stats may not distribute reports that reveal data contributors’ identities or ranking or the number of participants in a given metric. Agri-Stats may only distribute reports containing aggregated data that is at least 45 days old or, in the case of data reflecting production decisions, at least 90 days old. The data must come from at least three contributors, with no manufacturer accounting for 70% or more of the represented data.
  • Agri-Stats also must make subscriptions available to non-industry participants at comparable rates, maintain an antitrust compliance program with data-segregation and whistleblower protections, and be subject to a court-approved monitor selected by the government for up to seven years.
  • The settlement does not impact reports distributed by Agri-Stats’ subsidiary, EMI, as these reports do not contain non-public information.

Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Second Set of Class Settlements in RealPage MDL, In re RealPage, Inc. Rental Software Antitrust Litig. (No. II), No. 23-md-3071 (M.D. Tenn.)

  • On May 14, 2026, private plaintiffs in the RealPage MDL moved for preliminary approval of another 11 class settlements with 14 defendants totaling $218,125,000. Combined with the prior settlements preliminarily approved in November 2025, plaintiffs have now reached 37 settlements totaling approximately $359,925,000 with 41 defendants.
  • This second settlement mirrors the first. The settling defendants will no longer provide RealPage with nonpublic data to be used as an input to competitor pricing recommendations and will cease using any version of RealPage’s Revenue Management Software that uses non-public competitor data.

 Policy Developments

 States Weigh in on Proposed Updated Guidance for Competitor Collaborations

  • On February 23, 2026, the FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division launched a request for comments on new guidance on competitor collaborations. This guidance would replace the 2000 Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors, which were withdrawn in December 2024. Prior to the close of the comment period on May 21, 2026, the agencies received 100 comments.
  • Twelve state attorneys general, including for New York, California and Tennessee, submitted joint comments, which addressed both algorithmic pricing and information sharing. The states’ comments appear to align with the views of their federal counterparts, as reflected in recent statements of interest that FTC and DOJ have filed in pending court cases.
  • On algorithmic pricing, the states recommended that guidance address when horizontal competitors’ common use of a pricing algorithm may constitute concerted action and support inference of an agreement. The states also urged that any guidance should “take a strong stance” and make clear that the per se rule may apply.
  • On information sharing, the states recommended that guidance reflect that an information exchange can support a standalone antitrust claim and does not need to accompany a separate price-fixing agreement. The states also urged that guidance should be clear that there are no bright line rules for analyzing information exchanges.

Acting Deputy AAG Daniel Glad Identifies Algorithmic Conduct as a Criminal Enforcement Priority

  • On May 14, 2026, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement, Daniel Glad stated that “algorithmic conduct is [not] beyond the reach of criminal antitrust enforcement.” “[W]here competitors have understood that their sensitive non-public data will be used to set prices for competitors and have participated on that understanding,” the “door . . . to criminal enforcement, is open.”
  • Glad provided his views on two key issues that would be central to such a prosecution. First, he explained that the per se rule may apply, as “the classification tracks the conduct,” not the medium. This is important because the DOJ, as a matter of policy, only pursues criminal charges for per se Second, “intent travels with the human decision to contribute to and rely” on AI agents or algorithmic tools.
  • Glad pointed to two tools that will help the DOJ detect potential violations: the Procurement Collusion Strike Force, which focuses on bid rigging in government contracts, and the DOJ Whistleblower Rewards Program. He emphasized the importance of prompt self-reporting.
  • Finally, Glad highlighted that the Division’s November 2024 updated Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs includes risk-assessment questions directed at AI and algorithmic pricing tools. Businesses must be proactive in meeting the standards for compliance and cannot blame a model or rely on the advice of counsel.

 International Developments

Heat on RealPage Dissipates in Canada

  • In November 2025, the Canadian Competition Bureau ended its investigation of RealPage after landlords reportedly reduced usage of RealPage tools.
  • On April 1, 2026, at the request of the plaintiff, a Canadian court discontinued a proposed class action that alleged RealPage and corporate landlords conspired to fix rents and limit rental stock.
  • Canadian news outlets have reported that the bureau’s halted investigation, combined with settlements in RealPage lawsuits in the United States, were key developments that influenced the plaintiff’s decision to abandon the claim.

Brazil’s CADE Settled an Algorithmic Pricing Investigation Involving Fuel Stations

  • On April 8, 2026, Brazil’s Tribunal of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (“CADE”) approved a settlement with Intelprice Soluções de Precificação Ltda. in its first investigation involving algorithmic tools.
  • CADE found that Aprix, Intelprice’s fuel-pricing software, was designed to collect competitively sensitive information from fuel stations, which enabled users to standardize pricing.
  • The settlement requires Intelprice to appoint a competition compliance coordinator, reinforce its competition compliance program and adopt strict client data confidentiality clauses. Intelprice must also pay a fine, grant CADE access to its facilities and pricing software, and notify the tribunal if its market share reaches 20% in any municipality.

Mexico’s CNA Official Calls for Imposing a Duty of Care on Algorithmic Pricing Software Providers to Prevent Collusion

  • Speaking at the International Competition Network’s Annual Conference in May 2026, Víctor Meyer, a senior official at Mexico’s National Antitrust Commission (“CNA”) advocated for imposing a duty of care on algorithmic pricing software companies to prevent collusion.
  • Meyer also indicated that the CNA is investigating a hub-and-spoke algorithmic price fixing cartel under a negligence-based theory. The investigation involves a software provider allegedly sharing real-time, competitively sensitive information among competitors who were using the software to monitor each other’s conduct.
  • The CNA’s enforcement efforts align with recent amendments to Mexican competition law, which now expressly treats exchanges of information as a per se violation when used to fix prices, limit output, allocate markets or rig bids. The amendments also narrowed defenses premised on the absence of a formal agreement, which Meyer signaled may be particularly useful in algorithmic pricing and information-sharing cases.