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.

Following federal, state, and private litigation targeting Real Page, Yardi, and landlords that allegedly used revenue-management products, states and municipalities across the country have enacted laws restricting the use of algorithms or price optimization software to share or recommend rents, concessions, lease terms, or occupancy levels. These laws often authorize enforcement through a combination of private rights of action and public enforcement mechanisms, which has led to a new wave of litigation.

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 the Real Page litigation. 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 the Real Page litigation, including allegations concerning the use of nonpublic competitor information and public admissions regarding particular landlords' use of revenue-management products. Cases filed in mid-2026 include Gomez v. Greystar Management Services LLC, Keller v. UDR Inc., Nicolas v. Essex Management Corp., Romano v. UDR Inc., Liu v. Willow Bridge Property Company LLC and Real Page Inc., and Jahanbakhsh v. Greystar.