Justice Department clears path for RealPage rent-pricing settlement with Willow Bridge

The Department of Justice has told a federal court that its proposed settlement with landlord Willow Bridge Property Company, LLC remains an effective and appropriate remedy for algorithmic rent pricing, after considering the two public comments filed against it. The response of the Antitrust Division, published in the Federal Register of 9 November 2026 as document 2026-22832, states that once the response and the comments are published the United States “will move the Court to enter the proposed Final Judgment.” The case is United States of America et al. v. RealPage, Inc. et al., No. 1:24-cv-00710, before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

The filing is the last procedural step required by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act — the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h) — which obliges the government to submit proposed antitrust consent judgments to a 60-day public comment period before a court decides whether entry “is in the public interest.” The notice was signed by Suzanne Morris, Deputy Director for Civil Enforcement Operations; the 4,814-word response is dated 5 November 2026 and signed by Henry C. Su, David A. Geiger and Danielle G. Hauck of the Antitrust Division.

How the case reached this point

• The United States and several States filed the antitrust complaint against RealPage, Inc. on 23 August 2024.
• On 7 January 2025 the plaintiffs amended the complaint to add Willow Bridge and five other landlords as defendants, alleging that sharing information with RealPage and other landlords to align pricing violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.
• On 6 July 2026 the government filed the proposed Final Judgment as to Willow Bridge (Doc. 200–1), a Stipulation and Proposed Order (Doc. 200) in which the company consented, and a Competitive Impact Statement (Doc. 202).
• Those documents were published in the Federal Register on 16 July 2026 (91 FR 43,774), with notices in the Washington Post and the Greensboro News and Record from 14 to 21 July 2026.

What the decree would impose

The settlement targets the exchange of “competitively sensitive, nonpublic information” that, according to the complaint, let landlords align rents through RealPage’s AI Revenue Management (AIRM), YieldStar and Lease Rent Options (LRO) products. Its principal obligations:

• No licensing or use of any revenue management product that relies on third-party nonpublic data to recommend or set prices.
• No product that pools information from Willow Bridge properties with different owners.
• No disclosing, soliciting or using competitor information that can be used to set rents or generate pricing.
• Cooperation in the litigation, a written antitrust compliance policy and a chief antitrust compliance officer.
• Inspection of documents and employee interviews by the United States.
• A court-appointed monitor if an uncertified revenue management product is used, or if a violation is later found.

The judgment would run five years, with termination possible after three years on notice by the United States, and would end the action against Willow Bridge while the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it.

The two comments and the government’s answers

Both comments came from private individuals, identified in the filing only as MC (submitted 14 September 2026) and JD (11 September 2026). MC asked whether the decree adequately addresses algorithm-driven renewal pricing, tenant notification and “meaningful human review” of renewal offers. JD sought property-level inquiries, independent technical verification of pricing products, a larger audit sample, a public annual compliance report and monetary relief for renters.

The United States rejected each request. It said renewal-versus-new-lease pricing differences were not alleged as anticompetitive conduct and are “not germane to Tunney Act review”; that vendor certification plus inspection rights on source code suffice; that the internal audit requirement — at least 12 randomly selected local, regional or supervisory employees — already captures the company’s operations; and that restitution was not a remedy sought in the complaint. It also defended a cap of 15 employees and 60 total hours for voluntary cooperation, noting formal discovery remains available.

A limited review

The response stresses that judicial review of a consent judgment is narrow: the court may not make a de novo determination of facts, must defer to the government’s view of its case, and may not reject the remedy merely because it prefers another. The proposed decree, the government concludes, is “therefore in the public interest.”

For renters, the practical consequence is that a nationwide operator described in the filing as managing more than 240,000 units will face court-enforceable limits on how it uses competitor data and automated pricing tools — but with no monetary compensation, no public compliance reporting and no automatic monitor, the safeguards will rest on certification, inspection and the court’s retained jurisdiction.

Source: Federal Register, Vol. 91, No. 215, 9 November 2026, Notices, p. 70898 (official reference: FR Doc. 2026-22832).