the questionIn which proceedings was RealPage the claimant rather than the antitrust defendant?
1New York: preliminary relief in RealPage’s own action
analysisRealPage filed its action against New York Attorney General Letitia James in November 2025. The retained docket records a September 2026 preliminary injunction concerning Section 3 of General Business Law 340-B and denial of the attorney general’s dismissal motion. Here RealPage was seeking relief from enforcement rather than defending an antitrust complaint. 1
documentedRealPage itself sued New York Attorney General Letitia James in November 2025, case 1:25-cv-09847. The retained docket records a 29 September 2026 preliminary injunction against enforcement of Section 3 of General Business Law 340-B and denial of the attorney general’s dismissal motion. 1
- qualification
- RealPage is the plaintiff in this constitutional challenge. A preliminary injunction is not a final judgment and does not decide the separate antitrust claims.
analysisA preliminary injunction operates during litigation; it is not interchangeable with a final ruling that the entire law is invalid. It also does not determine whether the historical practices alleged in other proceedings were lawful. The constitutional challenge and the pricing cases answer different legal and factual questions. 1 2 3
attributedThe amended complaint separated two Sherman Act Section 1 theories—sharing competitively sensitive information and agreements to use pricing software—from Section 2 monopoly and attempted-monopoly claims against RealPage. It also pleaded claims under identified state laws. 2 3
- qualification
- Claims and legal theories in a complaint are not findings of liability.
- response
- RealPage and landlord defendants sought dismissal and disputed the allegations and legal theories.
- outcome
- Federal and state claims subsequently followed different procedural paths.
sources in this section
- Court record source · s-d166 identified by category only · Court record
- Court record source · s-d111 identified by category only · Court record
- United States v. RealPage: proposed final judgment and competitive-impact statement, December 2025 Federal Register / U.S. Department of Justice
2Berkeley: a reported separate challenge
analysisThe retained reported account describes a March 2025 challenge to Berkeley’s ordinance in federal court. It supports the existence and purpose of the challenge but does not establish its final outcome. The graph and narrative therefore do not count this action as a finding against RealPage or as a completed victory for it. 1
attributedA retained reported account describes RealPage’s March 2025 federal challenge to Berkeley’s rental-pricing-software ordinance, seeking to prevent enforcement on constitutional grounds. 1
- qualification
- RealPage is the challenging plaintiff. The retained account does not establish the action’s final outcome.
sources in this section
- Media source · s-d170 identified by category only · Media