Dom Beveridge, a multifamily technology analyst and creator and author of the 20for20 website and blog, recently addressed Seattle’s Ordinance CB121000, which bans the use of revenue management (RM) software that relies on competitor data—whether confidential or publicly available—in the multifamily housing market. His analysis highlights the confusion and cautious reactions this law has sparked within the industry and raises a broader question: should operators voluntarily give up the right to use widely adopted technology simply to avoid scrutiny or potential legal risk?
Seattle’s City Council passed CB121000 in July, building on similar ordinances in San Francisco, Berkeley, Philadelphia, and San Diego. Seattle’s law goes further by prohibiting the use of publicly available competitor data in pricing algorithms. Legal experts have questioned whether restricting public data is constitutional. The law, which took effect this month, requires operators to discontinue using RM tools that incorporate competitor data—even if publicly sourced—affecting many firms’ software practices.
The ordinance does not ban the use of third-party pricing software or algorithms. It does confirm that these tools can’t be used to enable data pooling across independent operators.
Regulatory pressure comes at a pivotal moment. Apartment giant Greystar, the largest owner and manager in the U.S. with over 120,000 units owned and nearly 950,000 under management, has reached a proposed settlement with the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. The DOJ alleged that Greystar and other landlords shared competitively sensitive data through RealPage’s RM software and directly among competitors to align pricing. Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater said:
“Competitors cannot share competitively sensitive information or align prices to the detriment of American consumers.”
If approved, the settlement will require Greystar to refrain from using any program that generates rent recommendations using nonpublic or sensitive competitor data, avoid sharing sensitive information with competitors, accept a court-appointed monitor for certain pricing algorithms, and report or avoid meetings with competing landlords hosted by RealPage. The restrictions will take effect in April 2026 or 180 days after final judgment, whichever comes first. Greystar maintains that its use of RM software complies with applicable laws and notes that the settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing.
In his 20for20 blog post, Beveridge points out that no major RM providers currently use confidential competitor data, and that practices banned by ordinances like Seattle’s have already been discontinued.
Beveridge emphasizes that the core of effective RM is leases and leads—the internal signals that reveal real demand—rather than competitor pricing data. Focusing on competitor data can lead to reactive, defensive pricing, while tracking leases and lead conversions allows operators to optimize pricing strategically, he said.
Seattle’s CB121000, combined with the Greystar settlement, illustrates the tension between regulatory oversight and operational strategy. Beveridge’s analysis reinforces that effective RM depends on internal demand data—leases and leads—not competitor data. He encourages RM providers and operators to maintain transparency and clarity about software usage while navigating the evolving legal landscape.
Yet he observes a troubling trend. Some legal departments are advising operators to stop using RM software altogether, even when the software is fully compliant.
He challenges legal teams and operators directly:
“For those of you still reading, I have one more ask: please forward this article to your firm’s general counsel. Because I genuinely want to know why anyone thinks a good tradeoff for multifamily technology is to sign away the right to use certain types of software just because it appears, on the surface, to be the lowest-risk option?”
Beveridge doubts that the near-term legal risk will be the end of the story. “So why make your firms behave as if they are breaking laws that they aren’t?” he asks, and promises all responses to these questions will be treated confidentially.
Here is the link to Beveridge’s blog post Learning the Wrong Lessons from Seattle’s New Pricing Law.
