LivCor Fed Its Rent Data Into RealPage's Algorithm. Nine States Called That Price-Fixing.

LivCor, LLC, a multifamily property manager owned by Blackstone, has agreed to pay $7 million to resolve allegations from a coalition of nine state attorneys general that it used a shared software platform to align rental prices with competing landlords by pooling confidential, nonpublic pricing data.DOCUMENTED

The settlement makes LivCor the third property management defendant to resolve claims in a sprawling antitrust case targeting RealPage, Inc. and the landlords that used its revenue management software, following earlier settlements with Cortland Management in 2025 and Greystar Management Services later that same year.DOCUMENTED

How a shared algorithm can function like a phone call

According to the settling states, LivCor and other landlords used RealPage's revenue management software by feeding it their own confidential rent, occupancy, and pricing data — information that would ordinarily stay private from competitors in any genuinely competitive market.DOCUMENTED RealPage's software then used that pooled information, drawn from LivCor and its competing landlords simultaneously, to generate pricing recommendations for each property, effectively basing one landlord's suggested rent in part on what its competitors were charging and how their units were performing.DOCUMENTED

The states allege this arrangement let landlords keep prices higher than a genuinely competitive market would have allowed, including in market conditions where landlords would ordinarily have been expected to lower prices to fill vacant units.DOCUMENTED Beyond the software itself, the complaint alleges landlords using RealPage's system also discussed competitively sensitive topics directly with one another — including pricing strategies, rents, and how they configured the software's parameters — conduct that moves beyond parallel use of a shared tool into more direct coordination.DOCUMENTED

Why this differs from ordinary market-based software

Software that helps a landlord analyze its own historical data, local market trends, or publicly available comparable listings does not, on its own, raise the same antitrust concern as software built around pooling nonpublic competitor data. The distinction the states draw is specifically about the confidential nature of the inputs: LivCor's own internal pricing and occupancy figures, shared into a common system alongside the same figures from competing landlords, allowed the algorithm to effectively coordinate pricing across an entire market segment without requiring any landlord to directly telephone a rival.REVIEWED

Landlords using the software understood that their own nonpublic data would be used to generate pricing recommendations not just for their own units, but for competitors using the same program — and that they, in turn, would benefit from competitors' data flowing back the same way.

What the settlement requires

Under the agreement, subject to court approval, LivCor must stop using any revenue management software offered by a company that relies on competitively sensitive information from other landlords to align rent prices, and must cooperate with the states' and the Justice Department's ongoing prosecution of RealPage and the remaining landlord defendants.DOCUMENTED Of the $7 million total, individual states will receive shares reflecting their own share of affected rental properties — Connecticut, where LivCor manages no properties directly, will still receive $486,759.26 as part of the coalition's negotiated distribution, while California, where LivCor managed 57 multifamily properties using RealPage's pricing software, receives a larger allocation tied to its own consent judgment.DOCUMENTED

Officials' statements

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, one of the coalition's members, said landlords using the shared system "discussed competitively sensitive topics — including pricing strategies, rents, and selected parameters for RealPage's software — directly with each other," framing the case as a modern version of traditional price coordination executed through software rather than a handshake.DOCUMENTED Officials across the coalition states have consistently emphasized that algorithmic tools do not create an exemption from ordinary antitrust law simply because the coordination happens through software rather than direct conversation.REVIEWED

Part of a larger, still-unfinished case

LivCor's settlement is the third among six original landlord defendants named alongside RealPage in a complaint first filed in January 2025, following consent judgments with Cortland Management and Greystar Management Services in 2025.REVIEWED Litigation continues against RealPage itself, along with remaining defendants Camden Property Trust, Willow Bridge Property Company, and Cushman & Wakefield subsidiary Pinnacle Property Management Services, meaning the full scope of remedies across the broader case remains undetermined even as individual landlords resolve their own portions of the litigation one settlement at a time.REVIEWED

For renters in markets where RealPage's software was widely used, the practical effect of the settlement is prospective rather than retroactive: LivCor's agreement changes how the company can price units going forward, but does not include direct refunds to tenants who paid rents the states allege were inflated by the underlying coordination.REVIEWED

Why algorithmic pricing cases have become a distinct antitrust category

The RealPage litigation, and the string of settlements it has produced, reflects a broader question antitrust enforcers have increasingly focused on across industries beyond housing: whether pricing software that pools competitors' confidential data functions as a modern substitute for the kind of direct price-fixing agreements antitrust law has targeted for more than a century.REVIEWED Traditional price-fixing requires proving landlords or executives actually communicated and agreed to coordinate prices — evidence that is often difficult to obtain absent a cooperating witness or a paper trail. A shared algorithm fed by each participant's own confidential data can achieve a similar coordinating effect without requiring any single direct conversation between competitors, which is precisely the legal theory the states are advancing across this entire line of cases.REVIEWED

That theory has not gone unchallenged. RealPage and several of the remaining landlord defendants have argued that revenue management software of this kind reflects legitimate, independent business analytics rather than unlawful coordination, and that any resulting price alignment simply reflects landlords independently reaching similar conclusions based on shared market conditions rather than actual collusion.REVIEWED How that dispute resolves for the defendants still contesting the case — RealPage itself, along with Camden Property Trust, Willow Bridge, and Pinnacle — will likely shape how similar algorithmic-pricing arrangements are treated across other industries where shared software increasingly informs pricing decisions.REVIEWED

What tenants can watch for going forward

Because the settlement's core requirement bars LivCor from using software that pools competitors' nonpublic data to set prices, renters in buildings the company manages may see pricing determined through a narrower set of inputs going forward — the company's own occupancy and market data, rather than a blended calculation informed by rival landlords' confidential figures.REVIEWED Whether that change produces a measurable difference in actual rent levels will likely take time to assess, particularly while litigation against the platform itself and several major landlords who have not yet settled remains unresolved.REVIEWED

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.