The Justice Department states that property owners did more than usage RealPage in the supposed rates plan. “Along with using RealPage’s anticompetitive pricing algorithms, these landlords coordinated through a variety of means,” such as “directly communicating with competitors’ senior managers about rents, occupancy, and other competitively sensitive topics,” the DOJ stated.

There were “call arounds” in which “property managers called or emailed competitors to share, and sometimes discuss, competitively sensitive information about rents, occupancy, pricing strategies and discounts,” the DOJ stated.

Landlords discussed their usage of RealPage software application with each other, the DOJ stated. “For instance, landlords discussed via user groups how to modify the software’s pricing methodology, as well as their own pricing strategies,” the DOJ stated. “In one 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.”

DOJ: Firms gone over “auto-accept” settings

The DOJ claim states RealPage presses customers to utilize “auto-accept settings” that immediately authorize rates suggestions. The DOJ stated today that residential or commercial property rental companies went over how they utilize those settings.

“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,'” the DOJ stated.

Greystar provided a declaration stating it is “disappointed that the DOJ added us and other operators to their lawsuit against RealPage,” which it will “vigorously” protect itself in court. “Greystar has and will conduct its business with the utmost integrity. At no time did Greystar engage in any anti-competitive practices,” the business stated.

The Justice Department is taken part the case by the chief law officers of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington. The case remains in United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.