D.C. Landlords Agree to $9.3M RealPage Settlements

The District of Columbia has reached separate settlements totaling $9.3 million with two major apartment owners accused of participating in an unlawful rent-setting arrangement involving RealPage software.

JBG Associates, commonly identified as JBG Smith, will pay $8.1 million. Mid-America Apartments will pay $1.2 million.

The agreements resolve the District’s claims against the two landlords and impose new restrictions on how they may use revenue-management software, exchange nonpublic rental information and discuss pricing technology with other apartment owners.

The companies did not admit liability or wrongdoing. The District’s broader antitrust case against RealPage and the remaining defendants continues.

D.C. Alleged That Landlords Used Shared Data to Inflate Rents

The D.C. Office of the Attorney General sued RealPage and 14 apartment landlords in November 2023.

The lawsuit alleges that competing landlords supplied RealPage with confidential information about rents, leases, concessions, occupancy and future availability. RealPage allegedly combined that information through its revenue-management software and returned pricing recommendations to participating properties.

According to the District, the arrangement reduced independent competition among landlords and helped keep apartment rents artificially high.

Those allegations have not been finally adjudicated against RealPage or the defendants that remain in the case.

The Office of the Attorney General says RealPage revenue-management software has been used to price more than 30% of apartments in D.C. multifamily buildings containing at least five units. Its estimated share rises to approximately 60% among buildings containing 50 or more apartments.

JBG Smith owns more than 4,500 apartments in the District, according to the attorney general’s announcement. Mid-America Apartments owns 269 D.C. units.

The Settlements Restrict More Than One Software Product

The consent orders do not simply prohibit the two companies from using a particular RealPage product.

They establish broader restrictions governing revenue-management systems that use confidential information from competing apartment owners.

Under the agreements, the companies may not knowingly use covered pricing software that relies on current, nonpublic competitor data. Historical competitor information may be used only under specified conditions, including limits intended to prevent active lease information from influencing current pricing recommendations.

The companies also may not use certain software configurations that improperly constrain independent pricing decisions.

Restricted features include systems that:

• Penalize or restrict rent-price overrides;

• Encourage blanket acceptance of recommended prices;

• Require an explanation whenever an employee rejects a recommendation;

• Automatically accept prices without individually established parameters;

• Prevent recommended rents from falling below existing rents; or

• Use pricing guardrails that treat rent increases and decreases asymmetrically.

These provisions are important for multifamily operators because they focus on how pricing software functions - not merely the name of the vendor providing it.

Communications With Competitors Are Also Restricted

The orders place limits on the promotion of revenue-management software among other apartment owners and managers in the District.

JBG Smith and Mid-America Apartments may not encourage competing landlords to use covered pricing tools or accept the rents those systems recommend.

The companies must also avoid exchanging nonpublic apartment information that could facilitate coordinated pricing. That includes internal information concerning executed rents, concessions, discounts, lease terms, occupancy, renewals and future availability.

JBG Smith’s order includes additional procedures for certain industry meetings involving competing apartment owners or managers. Depending on the circumstances, those procedures may require antitrust counsel, an advance compliance policy, meeting minutes or a signed employee statement confirming antitrust compliance.

The restrictions do not prevent property owners from reviewing genuinely public information, such as advertised rents and concessions available to prospective tenants.

The Two Consent Orders Have Different Terms

Although the settlements were announced together, their requirements are not identical.

JBG Smith’s principal injunctive restrictions will remain in effect for 10 years after the court enters its consent order.

Mid-America Apartments will be subject to its principal restrictions for eight years.

JBG Smith represented that it had stopped using RealPage revenue-management software for its D.C. properties. If it resumes using revenue-management software during the applicable reporting period, it must notify the District and submit information evaluating compliance with the order.

Mid-America Apartments must stop using RealPage revenue-management software at its D.C. property within 30 days after entry of its order unless the software can be operated in compliance with the settlement. It must also notify the District if it continues or begins using covered revenue-management software.

Both companies are required to cooperate with the District’s continuing litigation.

An Independent Monitor May Be Appointed

The settlements give the District continuing enforcement authority.

If compliance concerns cannot be resolved through the reporting and review process, the District may require the appointment of an independent monitor. The affected company would be responsible for the monitor’s reasonable fees and expenses.

That provision creates a financial and operational consequence beyond the initial settlement payment. Owners subject to similar agreements may need to document software configurations, employee practices, vendor assurances and communications with competing property managers.

Written policies alone may not be enough. Companies must be able to demonstrate that their actual pricing processes comply with the restrictions.

Payments Are Not Guaranteed Individual Tenant Checks

The Office of the Attorney General described the combined $9.3 million as covering civil penalties, money for affected residents and legal fees.

The consent orders give the District discretion to use the payments for lawful purposes, including a restitution fund, litigation costs, administration or other purposes authorized by District law.

The orders do not create an automatic right for an individual tenant to receive a portion of the settlement.

Residents should wait for official instructions from the D.C. government before submitting personal information or responding to anyone claiming to administer settlement payments.

The Case Against RealPage Continues

These agreements remove JBG Smith and Mid-America Apartments from the District’s claims covered by the settlements, but they do not end the larger RealPage case.

The Office of the Attorney General previously reached settlements with W.C. Smith, Avenue5 Residential and Bell Partners. Its claims against RealPage and other landlord defendants remain pending.

The continuing litigation will determine whether the District can prove its broader allegations that participating property owners used RealPage’s system to replace independent rent competition with coordinated pricing.

Separate federal and private antitrust proceedings involving RealPage have also increased scrutiny of revenue-management practices throughout the multifamily industry.

What Multifamily Owners Should Review Now

Apartment owners should not assume that antitrust exposure exists only when employees directly discuss rents with competitors.

Regulators are examining whether property-level information is being passed through a common technology provider and then used to influence prices across competing portfolios.

Owners and managers should review:

• What information is transmitted to revenue-management vendors;

• Whether the system incorporates nonpublic data from competitors;

• How recent any third-party rental data is;

• Whether employees can freely reduce or override recommended rents;

• Whether the software penalizes rejected recommendations;

• Whether automatic acceptance features are enabled;

• How rent floors, ceilings and pricing guardrails operate;

• What vendor representatives say during pricing or performance calls;

• Whether employees discuss software adoption with competing landlords; and

• Whether antitrust counsel has reviewed company policies, contracts and system configurations.

Vendor assurances should be documented, but they should not substitute for an independent examination of how the product actually works.

The Bottom Line

JBG Smith and Mid-America Apartments will pay a combined $9.3 million and accept long-term restrictions on their D.C. rent-setting practices to resolve the District’s claims against them.

JBG Smith’s principal restrictions last 10 years, while Mid-America Apartments’ restrictions last eight years. Both companies denied liability.

The settlements show that antitrust compliance in multifamily housing now extends directly into revenue-management technology. Owners must understand what data their systems collect, how recommendations are generated and whether employees retain genuine authority to make independent pricing decisions.