--- title: "State and D.C. cases: different defendants, different outcomes" language: en canonical: https://osint.v3rta.com/dossiers/realpage/state-and-dc-cases/ as_of: 2026-10-10 keywords: ["RealPage","Thoma Bravo","rental software","revenue management","YieldStar","Lease Rent Options","AIRM","rental housing","antitrust litigation","Stephen Winn"] --- # State and D.C. cases: different defendants, different outcomes **Question.** How do the state and District of Columbia proceedings differ? **Answer.** Some landlords settled or obtained dismissals while claims against other parties continued; those results do not resolve every RealPage case. ## D.C.: software use alone was insufficient in one pleading - Analysis: The District of Columbia sued RealPage and landlords in November 2023. In 2024, its court distinguished AvalonBay from other defendants: the allegations did not show the same sharing of data or delegation of pricing, and AvalonBay’s contract restricted reuse of its information. Claims against AvalonBay were dismissed while JBG Associates’ and Highmark’s dismissal motions were denied. [s-d132] [s-d164] - Attributed: The District of Columbia filed its action against RealPage and landlords on 1 November 2023, case 2023 CAB 6762. It alleged use of pricing software and information exchanges to inflate rents and sought relief under the District’s antitrust law. [s-d132] [s-d164] - Qualification: The allegations and requested remedies are the claimant’s position, not findings that every named landlord colluded. - Response: Defendants contested the claims and brought dismissal motions. - Documented: The D.C. court dismissed claims against AvalonBay in its 2024 ruling, explaining that the allegations did not show AvalonBay shared its data with other landlords or fully delegated pricing. It denied the motions of JBG Associates and Highmark. AvalonBay’s agreements prohibited use of its data for recommendations to other clients. [s-d164] - Qualification: The court distinguished the defendants’ alleged conduct; use of RealPage software alone was not enough in the AvalonBay pleading. - Analysis: D.C. later announced separate settlements with Avenue5, Bell Partners, JBG Associates and Mid-America Apartments. The reported amounts and restrictions belong to those settlements. They are not amounts paid by RealPage, and the announcements described continued pursuit of other defendants. [s-d143] [s-d212] - Documented: The D.C. attorney general announced separate 2026 settlements: Avenue5 and Bell Partners would pay $700,000 each, while JBG Associates and Mid-America Apartments would pay $8.1 million and $1.2 million respectively. The announcements described restrictions on pricing based on competitors’ nonpublic information and continuing pursuit of other defendants. [s-d143] [s-d212] - Qualification: These are the named landlords’ settlements, not a settlement by RealPage. ## Arizona, Kentucky and other jurisdictions - Analysis: Arizona’s complaint combines pricing-coordination allegations with a consumer-deception theory and identifies the products allegedly used by particular landlords. Its Phoenix and Tucson price estimates are preliminary claimant analysis; they are not measurements reproduced here or judicial findings. Alleged software use by a subsidiary is not automatically attributed to its parent. [s-d137] [s-d163] [s-d173] - Attributed: Arizona’s action, filed on 28 February 2024, alleges coordinated rental pricing and consumer deception involving RealPage and identified landlords. The complaint offered its own preliminary estimates of a 12% rental-price difference in Phoenix and 13% in Tucson. Retained counsel information identifies case CV2024-003889 in Maricopa County. [s-d137] [s-d163] [s-d173] - Qualification: The percentages are the claimant’s preliminary analysis, not independently reproduced estimates or judicial findings. A final merits outcome is not established in the retained evidence. - Response: RealPage’s retained general position disputes unlawful coordination and says landlords retain pricing discretion. - Attributed: Arizona’s complaint identifies Apartment Management Consultants, BH Management, Weidner, HSL entities, Trammell Crow and RPM Living among software users. It describes different mixes of YieldStar, AIRM and LRO rather than identical product use by all defendants. [s-d163] - Qualification: These customer roles are reported allegations of the complaint. Customer status alone does not establish collusion, and Crow Holdings’ parent role is distinct from Trammell Crow’s alleged product use. - Analysis: Kentucky’s docket records a narrower result than either total dismissal or victory: unjust-enrichment claims were dismissed while antitrust and consumer-protection claims proceeded. Later landlord-specific judgments and RPM Living’s dismissal did not establish a merits resolution for RealPage. Washington, New Jersey and Maryland proceedings also have distinct party lists and procedural developments. [s-d138] [s-d142] [s-d131] [s-d133] [s-d139] [s-d162] [s-d170] - Documented: In Kentucky’s case 2:25-cv-00093, a 2 February 2026 docket entry records dismissal of unjust-enrichment claims while Sherman Act and consumer-protection claims proceeded. Later consent judgments disposed of claims against Greystar Management Services and First Communities; RPM Living had been dismissed without prejudice in September 2025. [s-d138] [s-d142] - Qualification: These are limited procedural and party-specific outcomes; the retained docket did not establish a merits resolution for RealPage. - Attributed: Separate actions were brought in Washington in April 2025, New Jersey in April 2025 and Maryland in January 2025. Maryland added four defendants in June 2026. A retained reported account says the New Jersey action was narrowed but continued; the exact disposition of every claim against every landlord is not established here. [s-d131] [s-d133] [s-d139] [s-d162] [s-d170] - Qualification: Each action has its own defendant set and procedural record; none is treated as resolved merely because of the federal settlement. ## Nevada: an identified settlement with RealPage - Analysis: Nevada announced a September 2025 settlement directly with RealPage, with limits on competitor-data use and a $200,000 tenant-assistance payment plus a conditional additional amount. RealPage denied wrongdoing. This is a concrete resolution of that state’s matter, rather than evidence that every other state or private claim ended. [s-d172] - Documented: Nevada announced a settlement with RealPage on 19 September 2025. RealPage denied wrongdoing and agreed to specified limits on use of nonpublic competitor data, together with $200,000 for tenant assistance and a conditional additional amount of up to $300,000. [s-d172] - Qualification: The settlement and the attorney general’s allegations are distinct from a finding of liability. ## Sources - [s-d132] Regulatory record concerning the identified participant or proceeding, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia - [s-d164] Court record source · s-d164 - [s-d143] Regulatory record concerning the identified participant or proceeding, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia - [s-d212] Regulatory record concerning the identified participant or proceeding, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia - [s-d137] Regulatory record concerning the identified participant or proceeding, Arizona Attorney General - [s-d163] Arizona complaint against RealPage and landlords, Arizona Attorney General - [s-d173] Other source · s-d173 - [s-d138] Court record source · s-d138 - [s-d142] Court record source · s-d142 - [s-d131] Regulatory record concerning the identified participant or proceeding, Washington Attorney General - [s-d133] Regulatory record concerning the identified participant or proceeding, New Jersey Office of the Attorney General - [s-d139] Regulatory record concerning the identified participant or proceeding, Maryland Attorney General - [s-d162] Other source · s-d162 - [s-d170] Media source · s-d170 - [s-d172] Regulatory record concerning the identified participant or proceeding, Nevada Attorney General