State Attorneys General Are Redrawing the Lines on Rent Hikes and Algorithmic Pricing

A wave of enforcement actions hits large landlords

Over the last year, a series of high-profile cases in North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia has pushed landlord conduct—and especially rent-setting practices—under a brighter spotlight. Complaints that once focused on individual bad actors are now aimed at some of the largest property managers in the country and the software they use to set prices.

In several matters, state attorneys general allege that landlords relied on rent-setting tools that pooled sensitive data from competing owners, helping to push prices higher than a competitive market would support. Other cases center on basic compliance with rent-cap laws and notice rules: raising rent more than state law allows, or failing to give tenants enough time to prepare for increases. Together, these actions point toward a more assertive era of oversight for rental housing.

North Carolina and Oregon target algorithmic rent-setting

In November 2025, North Carolina reached a $7 million settlement with Greystar Management LLC, the state’s largest landlord with more than 25,000 units, in a case tied to RealPage’s rent-setting software.[ncdoj.gov] The complaint alleged that Greystar and other landlords shared non-public information about rent levels, occupancy, and pricing strategies, allowing RealPage’s algorithm to recommend higher rents than a truly competitive market would produce.

Under the settlement, Greystar must stop using sensitive data from competing landlords to set rents, whether through RealPage or other tools.[ncdoj.gov] The company is barred from attending RealPage-hosted meetings of competing landlords, restricted from using third-party algorithms without court supervision, and required to report regularly on its compliance. The agreement gives the state enforcement rights and the ability to inspect Greystar’s operations to ensure the new rules are followed.[ncdoj.gov]

North Carolina’s deal follows a broader pattern of scrutiny of RealPage-powered pricing. The U.S. Department of Justice separately announced that Greystar, which manages nearly 950,000 apartments nationwide, agreed to stop using certain “anticompetitive” features of the software and to change how it shares data with competitors.[propublica.org] In Oregon, the attorney general likewise announced a multimillion-dollar settlement with Greystar over alleged rent fixing involving RealPage’s tools, signaling that algorithmic pricing is now firmly on the radar of multiple states.[propublica.org]

For other landlords that rely on similar software, the clear message is that pricing tools cannot be a black box. If an algorithm relies heavily on non-public data from nearby competitors, enforcers may treat that as a form of coordination rather than simple market analysis.

Washington’s new rent-cap law gets its first test

While North Carolina and Oregon focus on how rents are set, Washington has become an early test case for how aggressively states will enforce new limits on **how much** rents can rise. A recently enacted law caps most rent increases in the state at 10% for the year, while manufactured home communities face an even tighter 5% cap.[opb.org] Landlords must also provide at least 90 days’ written notice before raising the rent.[washingtonstatestandard.com]

In summer 2025, Washington officials announced the first fines under this framework. According to local reporting, at least eight landlords were penalized for violating the rent-cap law—either by exceeding the permitted percentage increase or by failing to give proper notice.[opb.org][washingtonstatestandard.com] Some of the highest-profile cases involved manufactured home parks, where relatively small dollar increases can still exceed the 5% cap and put significant pressure on fixed-income households.[opb.org]

Separate coverage from Seattle media described enforcement actions that require landlords to refund tenants for illegal rent hikes and, in some cases, pay additional penalties.[washingtonstatestandard.com] These refunds effectively roll back rent increases that violated the cap, giving tenants direct financial relief while reinforcing that the new law has real teeth.

For property owners operating in capped markets, the Washington experience underscores the importance of tracking both the percentage limits and the notice rules. A rent increase that looks reasonable in dollar terms can still be illegal if it exceeds the statutory cap or is implemented too quickly.

DC’s price-fixing case and the broader antitrust backdrop

Beyond rent caps, DC has pursued a separate enforcement angle: alleged rental price-fixing. In 2025, the DC attorney general secured more than $1 million from a local landlord accused of participating in a coordinated pricing scheme for rental housing.[oag.dc.gov] The settlement includes payments to the District and relief that is expected to benefit affected tenants.

While the DC case is narrower in geographic scope than the national litigation around RealPage, it fits into a wider pattern. Enforcers are increasingly skeptical of situations where landlords share detailed, non-public data about rents and occupancy, especially when those data feed into common pricing tools. Even without explicit agreements to set prices, the combination of shared data and algorithmic recommendations can be framed as anticompetitive conduct if it tends to push rents higher across a market.[propublica.org]

For multi-market operators, that means antitrust and consumer-protection risk can arise in more than one jurisdiction at once—through both national investigations of software providers and local cases focused on particular buildings or neighborhoods.

What this means for renters, owners, and operators

For renters, these developments offer two main takeaways. First, unusually steep rent increases may be challengeable if they violate a state rent cap, skip required notice periods, or appear tied to prohibited practices such as coordinated price-setting. In Washington, for example, tenants who were charged more than the legal cap are now receiving refunds as part of enforcement actions.[opb.org][washingtonstatestandard.com] Second, even in states without formal caps, large landlords that use sophisticated pricing tools are likely to face growing scrutiny if those tools rely on competitors’ non-public data.

For owners and property managers, the trend points toward treating rent-setting and compliance as front-and-center risk issues rather than back-office functions. Key questions now include: What data feeds into your pricing tools? Do you document compliance with any rent caps or notice rules in your markets? And can you explain to regulators, if asked, how your rents are determined without relying on sensitive competitor data?

Investors and lenders should also be paying attention. Enforcement actions can bring not only direct financial penalties and refunds, but also ongoing monitoring obligations and limits on how software can be used. For large portfolios, the cost of reconfiguring pricing systems or unwinding certain data-sharing arrangements can be material, even if rent levels ultimately remain high.

Looking ahead, the common thread across North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, and DC is that rent-setting—once viewed as an almost entirely private business decision—is increasingly subject to detailed legal rules. Whether through antitrust law, consumer protection statutes, or explicit rent caps, state enforcers are signaling that how landlords use data and technology to set prices is now very much their concern.