Justice Department Sues Six Large Landlords for Algorithmic Pricing Scheme that Over-Charged Millions of American Renters

 

The US Department of Justice (DOJ), together with its 10 state co-plaintiffs, has filed an amended complaint in its antitrust lawsuit against RealPage, to sue six of the nation’s largest landlords for participating in algorithmic pricing schemes that harmed renters. The amended complaint alleges the landlords - Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC (Greystar); Blackstone’s LivCor LLC (LivCor); Camden Property Trust (Camden); Cushman & Wakefield Inc and Pinnacle Property Management Services LLC (Cushman); Willow Bridge Property Company LLC (Willow Bridge); and Cortland Management LLC (Cortland) - participated in an unlawful scheme to decrease competition among landlords in apartment pricing, harming millions of American renters. These landlords operate over 1.3 million units in 43 states and the District of Columbia. 

The Attorneys General of Illinois and Massachusetts joined the amended complaint as co-plaintiffs, increasing the total number of State and Commonwealth co-plaintiffs to 10 (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington). DOJ simultaneously filed a proposed consent decree with Cortland that requires it to cooperate with the government, stop using its competitors’ sensitive data to set rents, and stop using the same algorithm as its competitors without a corporate monitor.

The amended complaint alleges that the six landlords participated in a scheme to set their rents using each other’s competitively sensitive information through common pricing algorithms.  Along with using RealPage’s anticompetitive pricing algorithms, these landlords coordinated through a variety of means, including:

• Directly communicating with competitors’ senior managers about rents, occupancy, and other competitively sensitive topics. For example, Greystar supplied Camden with information not only about very recent renewal rates, but also its approach to pricing for the upcoming quarter, its acceptance of RealPage’s pricing recommendations, use of concessions and competitively sensitive information about occupancy. Similarly, executives at Camden and LivCor communicated over the course of months about their pricing strategies, including plans for certain price increases.
• Regularly conducting “call arounds.” During these discussions, referred to as “market surveys,” property managers called or emailed competitors to share, and sometimes discuss, competitively sensitive information about rents, occupancy, pricing strategies, and discounts.
• Participating in “user groups” hosted by RealPage. For instance, landlords discussed via user groups how to modify the software’s pricing methodology, as well as their own pricing strategies. For example, LivCor and Willow Bridge executives participated in a user group discussion of plans for renewal increases, concessions, and acceptance rates of RealPage rent recommendations.
• Sharing information with competitors about parameters in RealPage’s software. As an example, at the request of Willow Bridge’s director of revenue management, Greystar’s director of revenue management supplied its standard auto-accept parameters for RealPage’s software, including the daily and weekly limits and the days of the week for which Greystar used “auto-accept.”

DOJ also announced a proposed consent decree that, if approved by the court, would resolve its claims against Cortland, a landlord that manages over 80,000 rental units in 13 states. Under the proposed consent decree, Cortland would cooperate in the DOJ investigation and litigation and be barred from, among other things: (1) Using competitors’ competitively sensitive data to train or run any pricing model; (2) Using third-party software or algorithms to price apartments without the supervision of a court-appointed monitor; and (3) Soliciting, disclosing, or using any competitively sensitive information with any other property manager as part of setting rental prices or generating rental pricing recommendations.

As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed consent decree, along with the competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register. The 1974 Act, also known as the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, requires federal courts to review certain DOJ decisions.

Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed consent decree during a 60-day comment period to Chief, Technology and Digital Platforms Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 8600, Washington, D.C. 20530. At the end of the 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.

Proposed Final Judgment - US et al. v. RealPage Inc.pdf

Amended Complaint - U.S. et al. v. RealPage Inc..pdf

Read the January 7, 2025 DOJ press release.

US Department of Justice Corrects Legal Record on Horrific 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre

 

A new report by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has concluded that the 1921 attack in Tulsa's Greenwood District was the result of racially motivated violence targeting Black residents, refuting an initial federal account from the time. A coordinated attack by thousands of White people led to the slaughter of hundreds of Black residents. DOJ conducted the reexamination of the case under the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, which allows it to examine fatalities caused by civil rights crimes that occurred on or before December 31, 1979.

DOJ said a recent four-month reexamination of evidence in the case, known as the Tulsa Race Massacre, found that what an investigator described a month after the attack as spontaneous violence was, in fact, a coordinated effort by White perpetrators to decimate a thriving community known as “Black Wall Street.” The attackers, organized and aided by law enforcement, shot, beat, and arrested Black residents while burning and looting 35 city blocks over several hours on May 31, 1921, DOJ concluded. White authorities promised to help rebuild the community but instead put up barriers to financial assistance and offered no avenues for legal redress, investigators said.

The findings refute much of the initial report on the crime, in which a DOJ investigator at the time wrote that the violence was a “small” and “half-hearted” lynching attempt after a White man falsely accused a 19-year-old Black man named Dick Rowland of assaulting a White woman in an elevator.

Since then, historians have established a narrative consistent with DOJ’s new report, which is based on examining documents, witness accounts, and scholarly and historical research. The massacre “stands out as a civil rights crime unique in its magnitude, barbarity, racist hostility, and its utter annihilation of a thriving Black community,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said. “Until this day, the Justice Department has not spoken publicly about this race massacre or officially accounted for the horrific events that transpired in Tulsa.”

Read the January 10, 2025 Washington Post article.

Read the January 10, 2025 DOJ press release.

Citadel FCU Redlining Settlement Proves It’s Time To Bring Credit Unions Under Community Reinvestment Act Enforcement

The recent U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) law enforcement settlement with Citadel Federal Credit Union is excellent evidence why the Community Reinvestment Act’s (CRA) omission of credit unions from its rules is a mistake, according to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC). Citadel FCU agreed to a $6.5 million settlement regarding its alleged discouragement of homebuyers in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods of Philadelphia from applying for mortgages and systematically declined to make mortgages in those neighborhoods. Citadel maintains its innocence in the settlement.

“It no longer makes sense to let credit unions out of the common-sense obligations that CRA puts on traditional banks. Citadel’s alleged conduct in the case it just paid $6.5 million to settle is a timely demonstration of the problem and the need to enhance fair lending protections for credit union customers. Despite their public perception as a gentler, kinder, more community-minded provider of retail banking services, credit unions are just as capable of violating borrowers’ civil rights as any other financial institution. Whatever the driving causes underlying such violations, we know how to fix the problem: Supervise credit unions under CRA so that they can prove their actual actions live up to their public image.”

Such failures and business practices are commonly uncovered in traditional banking through regular federal CRA examinations, which are conducted every few years. Extending CRA to cover credit unions would both improve oversight and put new capital into neglected communities as the firms move into compliance with the law’s requirements. Bringing credit unions under CRA would ensure that they face an affirmative and binding obligation to those same people and communities.

Read the October 15, 2024 NCRC article.

Justice Department Secures Over $6.5M from Citadel Federal Credit Union for Redlining Philadelphia Area Black and Hispanic Communities

 

The U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) just announced that Citadel Federal Credit Union has agreed to pay over $6.5 million to resolve allegations that it engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination by redlining predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in and around Philadelphia in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). This is DOJ’s first redlining settlement with a credit union under its Combating Redlining Initiative.

The DOJ complaint, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that, from at least 2017-2021, Citadel failed to provide mortgage lending services to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in and around Philadelphia and discouraged people wanting credit there from obtaining home loans. Citadel’s home mortgage lending was disproportionately in white areas around Greater Philadelphia. Similar lenders generated mortgage applications in predominately Black and Hispanic neighborhoods at almost three times that of Citadel and originated mortgage loans in these areas over three times Citadel's rate.

The complaint also alleges that Citadel’s branches are situated almost solely in majority-White neighborhoods, with no branches in Philadelphia, which has over 75% of the majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods and 34% of the total population in Citadel’s market area.

Under the proposed consent order, subject to court approval, Citadel has agreed to invest $6.52 million to increase credit opportunities for communities of color in and around Philadelphia. Citadel will:

• Invest at least $6 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to home mortgage, home improvement, and home refinance loans for residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Philadelphia.
• Spend at least $250,000 on community partnerships to provide services related to credit, consumer financial education, homeownership, and foreclosure prevention for residents of predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in its market area.
• Spend at least $270,000 for advertising, outreach, consumer financial education, and credit counseling in predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Philadelphia.
• Open three new branches in predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Philadelphia.
• Hire a community lending officer to oversee the continued development of lending in communities of color.
• Hire independent consultants to strengthen its fair lending program and better meet the communities’ mortgage credit needs.
• Conduct a community credit needs assessment, evaluate its fair lending compliance management systems, and conduct staff trainings.

With assets of approximately $6 billion, Citadel is headquartered in Pennsylvania and has 24 branches in Greater Philadelphia, including Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Lancaster, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties. The second largest credit union in the area with over 263,000 members, Citadel cooperated with the DOJ investigation.

Since 2021, the DOJ's Combating Redlining Initiative, a coordinated enforcement effort to address this persistent form of discrimination against communities of color, has announced 14 redlining resolutions and secured over $144 million in relief for communities of color that have been the victims of lending discrimination. 

A copy of the complaint and information about DOJ’s fair lending enforcement work is at www.justice.gov/fairhousing. Individuals may report lending discrimination by calling the Justice Department’s housing discrimination tip line at 1-833-591-0291 or submitting a report online.

Read the October 10, 2024 DOJ press release.

Justice Department and North Carolina Reach $13.5 Million Agreement with First National Bank of Pennsylvania to Regarding Redlining

The First National Bank of Pennsylvania (FNB) has agreed to pay $13.5 million to resolve allegations by the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the State of North Carolina that it engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination by redlining predominantly Black and Hispanic North Carolina neighborhoods. Redlining is an illegal practice in which lenders avoid providing credit services to individuals living in communities of color because of the race, color, or national origin of residents in those communities.

The complaint alleges that from 2017-2021, FNB failed to provide mortgage lending services to predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Charlotte and Winston-Salem, and discouraged people seeking credit there from obtaining home loans. Instead, FNB’s home mortgage lending focused disproportionately on white areas of the cities. Other lenders had applications in predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods at 2.5 times the rate of FNB in Charlotte and 4 times the rate in Winston-Salem. FNB’s branches in both cities were also mostly located in predominantly white neighborhoods. The bank closed its only branch in a predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhood in Winston-Salem in 2021.

The complaint further alleges that FNB had mortgage loan officers working out of predominantly white areas to generate loan applications and that the bank did not track how they developed loan referrals or how they distributed the bank’s mortgage marketing materials.

Under the two proposed consent orders, FNB will invest $13.5 million to increase credit opportunities for communities of color in Charlotte and Winston-Salem, including: (1) $11.75 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to home mortgage, home improvement, and home refinance loans for residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in FNB’s service areas; (2) $1 million on community partnerships to provide services related to credit, consumer financial education, homeownership, and foreclosure prevention for residents of predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in those areas; (3) $750,000 for advertising, outreach, consumer financial education, and credit counseling for predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the areas; (4) open three new branches in predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the two cities, with at least one mortgage banker assigned to each branch; (5) hire a director of community lending to oversee the development of lending in communities of color; (6) retain independent consultants to enhance its fair lending program and better meet the communities’ needs for mortgage credit; (7) conduct a community credit needs assessment; (8) evaluate its fair lending compliance management systems; and (9) conduct staff trainings.

With assets of over $45 billion, FNB is headquartered in Pennsylvania and operates approximately 350 branches throughout the District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. It is among the 100 largest US banks.

*****

Photo by Andrew Stapleton on Unsplash

Read the February 5, 2024 DOJ release.

 Discrimination in Rental Housing

Property Management Company to Pay Nearly $75,000 to Resolve Service Members Civil Relief Act Claims

The U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) has announced that FPI Management Inc. (FPI) has agreed to pay $74,087 to resolve allegations that it violated the Service Members Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by imposing unlawful charges on nine service members who were exercising their right to terminate their apartment leases after receiving military orders to relocate. The SCRA extends various protections to service members to allow them to devote their entire energy to the national defense, including protections for service members in areas such as evictions, security deposits, pre-paid rent, civil judicial proceedings, installment contracts, interest rates, foreclosures and automobile leases; and allowance to terminate their residential leases after entering military service or receiving military orders for a permanent change of station, deployment or retirement. Landlords are prohibited from imposing an early termination charge on service members who terminate their leases under the SCRA.

The USDOJ started investigating FPI’s leasing practices after receiving a referral from Coast Guard Legal Assistance about two times where FPI attempted to require service members who were terminating their leases early under the SCRA to repay discounts they had received when they signed the lease in Oakland, California. Under the consent order, FPI has agreed to pay $51,587 to the service members and a $22,500 civil penalty. The order also requires FPI to repair the service members’ tenant database entries, implement new policies and procedures complying with the SCRA, and train employees on the SCRA. 

Service members and their dependents who believe that their rights under the SCRA have been violated should contact the nearest Armed Forces Legal Assistance Program Office. Office locations: legalassistance.law.af.mil. 

Read the June 13, 2023 USDOJ release.

GE to Pay $1.5 Billion U.S. Fine overSubprime Mortgage Fraud.

April 12, 2019. General Electric Co will pay a $1.5 billion civil fine to resolve the US Department of Justice (DOJ) examination of defective subprime mortgages from its former WMC Mortgage unit before the 2008 global financial crisis. DOJ said the agreement resolves claims that GE concealed the poor quality of the loans and WMC’s lax fraud controls when packaging the loans into residential mortgage-backed securities that it then sold to misled investors. WMC was purchased by GE’s finance unit, General Electric Capital Corp, in 2004, and issued over $65 billion of mortgage loans in the next three years. DOJ said WMC overstated the quality of a majority of loans it packaged into residential mortgage-backed securities, and its fraudulent practices resulted in billions of dollars of investor losses. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ge-settlement/ge-to-pay-1-5-billion-u-s-fine-over-crisis-era-subprime-mortgages-idUSKCN1RO233.