Why does the company get to keep on existing? Why are its owners not financially annihilated (as in, all their assets seized, etc.)?
It seems to me that if the end result of exploiting a million families/individuals for cartel rents is you get told, “Don’t do it again,” but no one who did it suffers any consequences… this is going to keep happening.
The participants in this scheme should be facing jail time and a financial reset. Oppression of the vulnerable should blow up underneath any who try it. Otherwise this country is going to explode.
Why is this an issue? They had a legitimate technical challenge (pricing 950k unique apartments in varying markets), and so they brought in an outside company. This was so successful everyone stated using them. The justice department then asked greystar, among others, if they could stop using RealPage, and they agreed. There wasn't a conviction as this is a proposed settlement, and there's no reason to break the company up because it looks like everyone is getting what they wanted.
Why would they be punished for engaging in monopolistic price fixing that ruined the lives of many of our most vulnerable and served to significantly increase homelessness?
Gosh, I dunno.
For further reading: John Oliver just did an episode on "deferred prosecution agreements" which is basically just legalized bribery at this point. It all sucks.
These guys suck. Took over the building I live in a year ago. Rent-raising, and the office staff they hired are idiots. When they took over, they pushed a scammy pay-rent-in-installments scheme when their normal rent system was broken. What they didn't tell anyone: The scheme involved a large fee.
If you have documented proof, please do what the press release says, and ask that excess rents be refunded. Someone has to put comments, or else it will go through without a hitch.
As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement, along with a competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register. Any interested person should submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement within 60 days following the publication to Danielle Hauck, Acting Chief, Technology and Digital Platforms Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 7050, Washington, DC 20530. At the conclusion of the public comment period, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina may enter the final judgment upon finding it is in the public interest.
I had a positive experience living in two different Greystar properties from 2013 to 2018, first in Chicago and then in San Francisco. That said, my expectations for property managers/landlords are extremely low. I learned in college how predatory they are when the small landlord I had didn't refund my deposit despite us keeping the place immaculate.
Tips:
1.) Read the lease. You probably have to notify them early that you are not renewing, or they can automatically renew you, or charge fees for not telling them.
2.) Never expect your deposit back. Consider putting your last month's rent into escrow until they refund your deposit. The NY Bank of Mellon offered this service at the time.
3.) Expect neighbors to complain if you have a dog, even if they are not loud or rambunctious, so see if you qualify to get an emotional support animal prescription to negate most legal issues.
4.) Things will break, document them in writing, use their "buildinglink" or whatever property management software they use today, but take screenshots and document it for your own records, including in email, so they can't delete it on you and say you didn't tell them.
5.) Every large landlord is a financial services business trying to extract fees out of you for everything they can think of to make a profit. They are the fast food of housing. Low labor costs, low expectations, not good for you in the long term. You should try to find a home to buy at some point to avoid enriching their shareholders.
> 3.) Expect neighbors to complain if you have a dog, even if they are not loud or rambunctious, so see if you qualify to get an emotional support animal prescription to negate most legal issues.
This sounds like you have a dog, who is loud, and you are causing a bother to all of your neighbors. But you aren't willing to be responsible about this situation. You probably shouldn't have a dog if you are living in an apartment building in the first place.
My experience couldn't have been more different. They started insisting I didn't have renter's insurance midway through the second year. I provided them evidence every month for the remaining 7 months of the lease, which they would "lose" by the next month. Didn't matter how well I recorded providing them the information.
When I moved out, they exercised their unannounced walkthrough clause two weeks before the actual date, when I still had property in the unit. These photos were used as evidence that I had left things behind to keep my deposit, despite being provided photos of said items at my new place.
> 3.) Expect neighbors to complain if you have a dog, even if they are not loud or rambunctious, so see if you qualify to get an emotional support animal prescription to negate most legal issues.
So sad to see the high trust society we live in slowly degrade because of people doing stuff like this.
> 3.) Expect neighbors to complain if you have a dog, even if they are not loud or rambunctious, so see if you qualify to get an emotional support animal prescription to negate most legal issues.
Can't tell you how much I hate this in principle. So many people "game" the emotional support animal system that it's impossible to tell if the dog you're seeing at the mall is going to be a trained service animal or someone's 100lb "fur baby" that will try to jump on you when you get close. I can't imagine how people with fur allergies or fear of dogs deal with this stuff.
I’m I reading this right that the settlement is just “don’t do that again”? Is it typical in antitrust settlements to not have sort of monetary punishment? Like if this were a class action settlement, they would have to pay back some amount of money to renters.
Lawyer here -
It varies whether there is monetary punishment, but sure, i'd say 75% of cases at leaset there is.
However, the damages are likely hard to calculate here - since it involves calculating and arguing about prevailing rental rates in a competitive market vs the actual market due to realpage, in a huge number of places. Greystar would have argued about every single finding you made, too.
Because of the novelty and complexity involved, Greystar could have tied this up for a decade arguing about that and appealing any results, i'm sure. On top of that, Greystar would argue all they did is share data with realpage and use realpage's results, so any loss is really attributable to realpage, not to them.
Greystar may also not have tons of money. Most of their deals are debt deals. The company is private, and while revenue is roughly known, profit isn't publicly known (AFAIK). So it's hard to say what fine they could afford. The DOJ knows, of course, just we don't know.
Finally, being a private firm that does what they do, my guess is they would play games and other things with any real fine to avoid having to pay it (bankruptcy, et al).
Overall - getting their cooperation is probably more valuable than arguing about damages for a decade and then watching greystar play games while losing the ability to go meaningfully after RealPage.
Obviously, i'm not trying to state any of this is ethically okay or that folks who were overcharged don't deserve their money back. I'm just trying to give you a dispassionate view of some of the decision making involved and why they may have chosen what they did.
Or at least, what would normally be involved. With the trump administration, who knows.
>I’m I reading this right that the settlement is just “don’t do that again”? Is it typical in antitrust settlements to not have sort of monetary punishment?
The better question is how strong of a case the government had. Your question implies Greystar was indisputably guilty and the government's case would be a slam dunk, but that's not readily apparent, given the novel concept of "algorithmic price fixing".
>Like if this were a class action settlement, they would have to pay back some amount of money to renters.
This settlement doesn't preclude class action lawsuits on the part of tenants.
My understanding is landlords were retaliated against for frequently deviating from the prices set by such software. Is that wrong for this particular company? Because if it's not, then I don't see how that's not price fixing.
There’s also “required to cooperate against Realpage”, which is the true target of all this. Presumably this administration isn’t interested in clawing back illicitly earned gains from corporations.
Good. Algorithmic pricing is awful and should be completely banned, especially for necessities like shelter. Despite all the boosters claiming it’ll reduce costs by charging what everyone can afford, we have ample evidence that it just inflates costs for everyone because it maximizes what they can pay.
But aren’t they doing that anyway? There are MBAs and consultants who specialize in setting prices. Why does it matter if they use a person or an algorithm or a random number generator?
They weren't condemned for the algorithmic pricing part, they were condemned because they "participated" (subtext: along with other landlords).
The "algorithmic" part is just cartel laundering, they probably hoped that by not communicating directly with competitors, but instead having participants giving their data to "the algorithm" which would have consolidated the data and given each participant optimal pricing, they could evade charges.
I agree the title would have been much better if that point was clearer.
It's not about the technology per se. There's a difference between setting a price and colluding to create the price.
If the major players in an industry all happened to share all of their data with the same consultant, and the consultant told them all what to set the price to, I imagine you'd have the same legal issue.
Deferred Prosecution Agreements: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO). 4 August 2025
Basically, these agreements and settlements let companies get away with crimes without incurring any meaningful penalties, and in many cases they are allowed to continue with their existing practices, or regulate themselves.
Welcome to gangster capitalism [1], which only doesn't differ from ordinary capitalism all that much.
All capitalism does is build enclosures and engage in rent-seeking. When you see private equity taking over every aspect of your life down to local medical practices, vets and trailer parks, all they're doing is leveraging a necessity into higher prices by giving you absolutely no other choice.
Going forward you will see absolutely no criminal consequences for the company or the indiivudals responsible either because we're now openly selling pardons [2] and we have a Supreme Court that made the president a monarch with immunity from criminal prosecution.
I don't know what America becomes after this but it has changed and is fundamnetally changing and it's never going back. We're in a period like the start of the nuclear age, the Cold War and the Red Scare. Or post-9/11. There are many people here and elsewhere who distinctly remember how different life was before 9/11.
And there is zero political opposition to any of it. The Democratic Party is absolutely complicit in everything that's happening.
I don’t understand which part of this is illegal. They are landlords and so they can set the rent. Why does it matter if they use an algorithm or a random number generator? If the price is too high people simply won’t pay it. I don’t think it’s really possible to charge more than the market will bear. Because they simply won’t pay it then.
> They are landlords and so they can set the rent.
They are supposed to compete with other landlords. If they enter an agreement to share prices and to not undercut each other, market mechanics no longer work.
Readit News
It seems to me that if the end result of exploiting a million families/individuals for cartel rents is you get told, “Don’t do it again,” but no one who did it suffers any consequences… this is going to keep happening.
The participants in this scheme should be facing jail time and a financial reset. Oppression of the vulnerable should blow up underneath any who try it. Otherwise this country is going to explode.
As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement, along with a competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register. Any interested person should submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement within 60 days following the publication to Danielle Hauck, Acting Chief, Technology and Digital Platforms Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 7050, Washington, DC 20530. At the conclusion of the public comment period, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina may enter the final judgment upon finding it is in the public interest.
Tips:
1.) Read the lease. You probably have to notify them early that you are not renewing, or they can automatically renew you, or charge fees for not telling them. 2.) Never expect your deposit back. Consider putting your last month's rent into escrow until they refund your deposit. The NY Bank of Mellon offered this service at the time. 3.) Expect neighbors to complain if you have a dog, even if they are not loud or rambunctious, so see if you qualify to get an emotional support animal prescription to negate most legal issues. 4.) Things will break, document them in writing, use their "buildinglink" or whatever property management software they use today, but take screenshots and document it for your own records, including in email, so they can't delete it on you and say you didn't tell them. 5.) Every large landlord is a financial services business trying to extract fees out of you for everything they can think of to make a profit. They are the fast food of housing. Low labor costs, low expectations, not good for you in the long term. You should try to find a home to buy at some point to avoid enriching their shareholders.
This sounds like you have a dog, who is loud, and you are causing a bother to all of your neighbors. But you aren't willing to be responsible about this situation. You probably shouldn't have a dog if you are living in an apartment building in the first place.
When I moved out, they exercised their unannounced walkthrough clause two weeks before the actual date, when I still had property in the unit. These photos were used as evidence that I had left things behind to keep my deposit, despite being provided photos of said items at my new place.
So sad to see the high trust society we live in slowly degrade because of people doing stuff like this.
Can't tell you how much I hate this in principle. So many people "game" the emotional support animal system that it's impossible to tell if the dog you're seeing at the mall is going to be a trained service animal or someone's 100lb "fur baby" that will try to jump on you when you get close. I can't imagine how people with fur allergies or fear of dogs deal with this stuff.
However, the damages are likely hard to calculate here - since it involves calculating and arguing about prevailing rental rates in a competitive market vs the actual market due to realpage, in a huge number of places. Greystar would have argued about every single finding you made, too.
Because of the novelty and complexity involved, Greystar could have tied this up for a decade arguing about that and appealing any results, i'm sure. On top of that, Greystar would argue all they did is share data with realpage and use realpage's results, so any loss is really attributable to realpage, not to them.
Greystar may also not have tons of money. Most of their deals are debt deals. The company is private, and while revenue is roughly known, profit isn't publicly known (AFAIK). So it's hard to say what fine they could afford. The DOJ knows, of course, just we don't know.
Finally, being a private firm that does what they do, my guess is they would play games and other things with any real fine to avoid having to pay it (bankruptcy, et al).
Overall - getting their cooperation is probably more valuable than arguing about damages for a decade and then watching greystar play games while losing the ability to go meaningfully after RealPage.
Obviously, i'm not trying to state any of this is ethically okay or that folks who were overcharged don't deserve their money back. I'm just trying to give you a dispassionate view of some of the decision making involved and why they may have chosen what they did.
Or at least, what would normally be involved. With the trump administration, who knows.
The better question is how strong of a case the government had. Your question implies Greystar was indisputably guilty and the government's case would be a slam dunk, but that's not readily apparent, given the novel concept of "algorithmic price fixing".
>Like if this were a class action settlement, they would have to pay back some amount of money to renters.
This settlement doesn't preclude class action lawsuits on the part of tenants.
In China these people would be in labor camps for anti-social exploitation.
They weren't condemned for the algorithmic pricing part, they were condemned because they "participated" (subtext: along with other landlords).
The "algorithmic" part is just cartel laundering, they probably hoped that by not communicating directly with competitors, but instead having participants giving their data to "the algorithm" which would have consolidated the data and given each participant optimal pricing, they could evade charges.
I agree the title would have been much better if that point was clearer.
If the major players in an industry all happened to share all of their data with the same consultant, and the consultant told them all what to set the price to, I imagine you'd have the same legal issue.
Deferred Prosecution Agreements: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO). 4 August 2025
Basically, these agreements and settlements let companies get away with crimes without incurring any meaningful penalties, and in many cases they are allowed to continue with their existing practices, or regulate themselves.
All capitalism does is build enclosures and engage in rent-seeking. When you see private equity taking over every aspect of your life down to local medical practices, vets and trailer parks, all they're doing is leveraging a necessity into higher prices by giving you absolutely no other choice.
Going forward you will see absolutely no criminal consequences for the company or the indiivudals responsible either because we're now openly selling pardons [2] and we have a Supreme Court that made the president a monarch with immunity from criminal prosecution.
I don't know what America becomes after this but it has changed and is fundamnetally changing and it's never going back. We're in a period like the start of the nuclear age, the Cold War and the Red Scare. Or post-9/11. There are many people here and elsewhere who distinctly remember how different life was before 9/11.
And there is zero political opposition to any of it. The Democratic Party is absolutely complicit in everything that's happening.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangster_Capitalism
[2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-pardons-...
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing
also housing is a pretty necessity so the prices can keep going up and people will continue to buy
Deleted Comment
They are supposed to compete with other landlords. If they enter an agreement to share prices and to not undercut each other, market mechanics no longer work.