RealPage rent-pricing case: court approves about $360M in landlord settlements

A major federal antitrust lawsuit over algorithmic rent-setting with RealPage's software has been settled, according to filings in RealPage Inc. Rental Software Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. In an Oct. 15 filing, the court approved the settlements, including the settlement amounts, the releases, and the dismissal with prejudice of the action as to the settling defendants. It found the settlements fair and adequate to the settling class.

The case began in late 2022 and early 2023, when a slew of class-action lawsuits were filed against RealPage and about 50 of the largest apartment owners and operators. They alleged that the Richardson, Texas-based software provider enabled landlords to collude to raise rents beyond free-market levels, in violation of antitrust law. The cases were centralized into one in April 2023.

The settlements came in waves. In May, 11 defendant landlords reached 14 class settlements worth $218 million. In October 2025, 27 landlords reached 26 settlements worth more than $141.8 million. Taken together, the two figures come to roughly $360 million. The plaintiffs asked for class certification on Oct. 2. The settlement class covers U.S. multifamily renters who paid any owner or operator on a property that used RealPage's Revenue Management Solutions, Lease Rent Options, YieldStar and/or AI Revenue Management at any time between Oct. 18, 2018 and Nov. 21, 2025.

None of the companies admitted fault or liability. They did agree to stop providing RealPage with their nonpublic data for use as an input in the price recommendations of its revenue management system. They also agreed to stop using RealPage's system in ways that use competitors' non-public data to inform pricing recommendations.

Not everyone welcomed the deals. After the defendant landlords asked for final approval on Sept. 25, attorneys general from the District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington fought the agreements. They argued the settlements could "unlawfully restrict" their own separate lawsuits, a concern they had already raised after an earlier group of settlements. Judge Waverly Crenshaw again denied their request. In an Oct. 9 filing he wrote that the proposed releases do not injure the state AGs' independent sovereign or quasi-sovereign interests, though he added that he would take their concerns into consideration.

The final settlement permanently closes all claims against the settling defendants, except where the agreement expressly says otherwise. The filing states that the dismissal does not affect, release, or impair any claim against any defendant or alleged co-conspirator that is not a settling defendant. It also says the certification of the settlement class is for settlement purposes only and is without prejudice to any party's defenses, arguments or positions with respect to any other class in the action or any other action.

Peter Carstensen, an antitrust expert and professor of law emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told Multifamily Dive he cannot tell from reading the decree whether the agreements will really limit the ability of these firms to coordinate and communicate with each other. He said the settlements offer guidance to companies providing rent-pricing models, and that the question for any industry is how much it gives up by restricting what it does, and whether there are moves consistent with the decree that would still allow a little more coordination in pricing. He also said DOJ and state AGs usually work together on antitrust, but that there are a growing number of fights between states and the federal government over settlements. In his words, the Justice Department and Trade Commission are bringing cases and settling them, while the states have brought the same case but are not settling on the same terms.

In November 2025, the U.S. Justice Department settled with RealPage in a related 2024 lawsuit that claimed the software provider enabled landlords to collude to raise rents. Several similar state and local lawsuits are ongoing.

Key facts

The Middle District of Tennessee approved the settlements in an Oct. 15 filing, dismissing with prejudice the claims against the settling landlords.
Two waves: 11 landlords with 14 settlements worth $218 million in May, then 27 landlords with 26 settlements worth more than $141.8 million in October 2025.
No company admitted fault; they agreed to stop feeding RealPage their nonpublic data for price recommendations and to stop using it in ways that draw on competitors' non-public data.
Attorneys general from DC, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington tried to block the deals; Judge Waverly Crenshaw denied the request on Oct. 9.
The class covers renters who paid on properties using RealPage's software between Oct. 18, 2018 and Nov. 21, 2025; related state and local suits continue.

Why it matters

This is the resolution of the main private class action over algorithmic rent-setting, the claim that shared pricing software lets competing landlords collude without talking to each other. The settlements put roughly $360 million on the table across two waves and bind the settling landlords to limits on how they feed data into RealPage's system. Because none of the companies admitted fault, the court has not ruled on the collusion allegation itself. Antitrust expert Peter Carstensen says the terms give guidance to other firms that sell rent-pricing models.

Who it affects

Renters in the settlement class: U.S. multifamily tenants who paid an owner or operator on a property that used RealPage's Revenue Management Solutions, Lease Rent Options, YieldStar and/or AI Revenue Management between Oct. 18, 2018 and Nov. 21, 2025. Also the 11 landlords in the May wave and 27 in the October 2025 wave, which must change how they share data with RealPage. Landlords that are not settling defendants are not covered by the dismissal. Companies selling pricing software to landlords are affected through the guidance the terms provide.

How to use it

For renters, the filing defines who is in the class: anyone who paid an owner or operator on a property using one of RealPage's listed products during the class period. No per-renter payout amount or distribution schedule is given in the article, so anyone who thinks they qualify would need to check the court's own notices. For software vendors and landlords, the practical content is the data limit: no supplying nonpublic data as an input to RealPage's price recommendations, and no use of the system in ways that draw on competitors' non-public data.

How solid is it

The core facts come from court filings (Oct. 15 approval, Oct. 9 denial of the state AGs' request) as reported by Multifamily Dive, with numbers stated for each settlement wave. The second figure is given only as 'more than $141.8 million', so the roughly $360 million total is a sum of the two reported figures rather than a number stated in the article. The collusion claims remain allegations: the companies admitted no fault or liability.

Risks and caveats

Carstensen says he cannot tell from the decree whether the agreements will actually curb coordination between the firms. The five state AGs argued the releases could restrict their own separate suits; the judge found they do not injure the states' sovereign interests but said he would consider their concerns. The dismissal reaches only settling defendants, so claims against any non-settling defendant or alleged co-conspirator survive. Class certification is for settlement purposes only. The article does not say whether the AGs will appeal. Several similar state and local lawsuits are ongoing, and Carstensen notes the federal settlement is not necessarily the final word.

“The federal settlement is what it is, but it's not the final word necessarily”

— Peter Carstensen, antitrust expert and professor of law emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison