The increasing use of algorithmic pricing systems and revenue-management software has transformed the competitive landscape of modern commerce. Businesses across numerous industries now rely on sophisticated software capable of collecting market data, analyzing competitors’ pricing behavior, forecasting consumer demand, and generating near-instantaneous pricing recommendations. These systems are commonly promoted as efficiency-enhancing technologies that maximize revenue and reduce operational uncertainty. Yet as pricing algorithms become more deeply integrated into commercial markets, regulators, courts, and private litigants have begun to question whether some of these technologies facilitate unlawful coordination in violation of federal antitrust law. Recent litigation involving RealPage, Inc. has emerged as one of the most important legal battlegrounds concerning algorithmic pricing and may ultimately redefine how courts analyze concerted action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.¹
Traditionally, antitrust law focused on explicit agreements among competitors. Courts historically evaluated evidence such as secret meetings, coordinated communications, bid-rigging schemes, and written price-fixing agreements to determine whether firms unlawfully restrained trade. Modern algorithmic pricing systems complicate that framework because competitors may achieve coordinated pricing outcomes without engaging in direct human communications. In many industries, competing firms subscribe to the same software platform, provide detailed operational data to a centralized intermediary, and rely upon algorithmic recommendations to guide pricing decisions. Plaintiffs and regulators increasingly argue that such arrangements can reduce competitive uncertainty and facilitate coordinated conduct comparable to traditional cartel activity. ²
The modern legal framework governing conspiracy claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act is heavily influenced by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). In Twombly, the Supreme Court held that allegations of parallel conduct alone are insufficient to establish a plausible conspiracy claim under federal antitrust law. ³ The Court emphasized that businesses operating in concentrated markets often engage in similar conduct because of shared economic incentives rather than unlawful agreements. As a result, plaintiffs must plead sufficient factual matter to render the alleged conspiracy plausible rather than merely conceivable. ³ The Court further explained that lawful “conscious parallelism” does not violate the Sherman Act absent evidence suggesting that competitors entered into an agreement or coordinated arrangement. ³
The significance of Twombly in the algorithmic-pricing context is substantial. Businesses defending algorithmic pricing claims routinely argue that pricing software merely assists firms in independently responding to market conditions. Defendants frequently maintain that algorithms generate pricing recommendations based upon lawful economic analysis, publicly available information, or firm-specific operational data. Plaintiffs, however, argue that algorithmic systems fundamentally alter traditional competitive dynamics because the software can monitor competitors in real time, instantly adjust prices, and reduce the uncertainty that historically destabilized collusive arrangements. The central legal question therefore becomes whether competitors are independently using technology to maximize profits or whether they are effectively coordinating prices through a shared algorithmic mechanism. ³
One of the most influential Supreme Court precedents informing this debate is Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (1939).⁴ In Interstate Circuit, film distributors simultaneously adopted restrictive policies after receiving substantially identical communications proposing coordinated conduct. Although the government lacked direct evidence of an express agreement among competitors, the Supreme Court held that conspiracy could be inferred from circumstantial evidence demonstrating that each party knew others were expected to participate in the arrangement.⁴ The Court reasoned that coordinated action could be inferred where defendants knowingly participated in a scheme whose success depended upon collective adherence.⁴
Modern plaintiffs increasingly rely upon Interstate Circuit to argue that centralized pricing software creates a comparable form of indirect coordination. Instead of competitors meeting secretly to agree upon prices, plaintiffs contend that competing firms may knowingly participate in a centralized pricing ecosystem in which confidential data is pooled and algorithmic recommendations drive collective market outcomes. Plaintiffs argue that when competitors delegate pricing authority to a shared platform designed to optimize market-wide revenue, the resulting conduct resembles the coordinated action condemned in Interstate Circuit.⁴ Defendants counter that the analogy is misplaced because algorithmic tools merely provide recommendations and individual firms retain ultimate authority over final pricing decisions.
The Sixth Circuit’s antitrust jurisprudence also plays a significant role in shaping the legal standards governing algorithmic-pricing claims. In In re Travel Agent Commission Antitrust Litigation, 583 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2009), travel agents alleged that several airlines conspired to reduce commissions paid to travel agencies.⁵ The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint, concluding that allegations of parallel conduct and shared economic incentives were insufficient under Twombly absent factual allegations plausibly suggesting agreement.⁵ The court emphasized that antitrust law does not prohibit firms from independently adopting similar strategies in response to common market conditions.⁵
The reasoning in Travel Agent Commission presents important challenges for plaintiffs pursuing algorithmic-pricing cases. Many industries adopt pricing technologies because those tools improve efficiency, increase forecasting accuracy, and optimize revenue management. Consequently, defendants often argue that widespread use of similar pricing software merely reflects rational market behavior rather than unlawful collusion. Plaintiffs therefore bear the burden of demonstrating that the software platform itself functioned as a mechanism facilitating coordinated action rather than a neutral technological tool.⁵
Similarly, in Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., 648 F.3d 452 (6th Cir. 2011), the Sixth Circuit reaffirmed that plaintiffs may rely upon circumstantial evidence and “plus factors” to establish concerted action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.⁶ The court explained that evidence such as motive, opportunities to conspire, conduct against economic self-interest, or unusual market behavior may support an inference of agreement when viewed collectively.⁶ However, the court reiterated that lawful parallel conduct alone remains insufficient to establish conspiracy liability.⁶ These principles are particularly important in algorithmic-pricing litigation because plaintiffs frequently rely upon pricing similarities, data-sharing arrangements, and coordinated software adoption as circumstantial evidence of concerted conduct.⁶
Against this legal backdrop, In re RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II) has emerged as one of the most consequential modern antitrust cases involving algorithmic pricing technology. ¹ RealPage provides revenue-management software used by landlords and property managers throughout the United States. According to plaintiffs, RealPage’s software aggregates confidential rental and occupancy data from competing landlords and uses proprietary algorithms to generate rental pricing recommendations intended to maximize revenue across the market.¹ Plaintiffs allege that participating landlords collectively relied upon RealPage’s pricing recommendations and thereby engaged in coordinated rent inflation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. ¹
The allegations in RealPage center on the claim that the software materially altered competitive conditions in multifamily housing markets. Plaintiffs contend that landlords shared highly sensitive non-public information with RealPage, including occupancy rates, lease renewal data, concessions, pricing trends, and future pricing strategies. ¹ According to the complaints, RealPage then used this information to recommend rental prices designed not merely to optimize profits for individual landlords, but to increase overall market-wide revenue. ¹ Plaintiffs argue that this process effectively replaced independent competitive pricing with coordinated algorithmic decision-making. ¹
The Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in the litigation, signaling heightened federal scrutiny of algorithmic coordination and revenue-management software. ¹ The DOJ argued that competitors cannot evade Sherman Act liability merely because they outsource pricing functions to a centralized algorithmic intermediary. ¹ According to the government, firms may violate Section 1 when they knowingly participate in arrangements involving the exchange of competitively sensitive information and coordinated pricing recommendations, even if competitors never directly communicate with one another. ¹ The DOJ’s position reflects an increasingly expansive approach toward antitrust enforcement in digital and data-driven markets. ¹
The federal government’s involvement also reflects broader concerns regarding artificial intelligence and automated market coordination. Historically, cartels often proved unstable because participating firms possessed incentives to deviate from agreed-upon pricing structures in order to gain market share. Modern pricing algorithms, however, may reduce those incentives by rapidly detecting pricing deviations, forecasting competitor responses, and adjusting prices in real time. Regulators increasingly fear that algorithmic systems may enable durable supercompetitive pricing structures with minimal human involvement. ¹
At the same time, courts remain cautious about expanding antitrust liability too broadly. Revenue-management systems frequently generate substantial procompetitive benefits. Dynamic pricing models can improve inventory allocation, reduce waste, optimize consumer demand forecasting, and increase operational efficiency. Airlines, hotels, retailers, and transportation providers have long used sophisticated pricing systems to manage fluctuating supply and demand conditions. Antitrust law traditionally avoids condemning conduct merely because it increases profitability or allows firms to respond more effectively to market conditions. Courts therefore face the difficult task of distinguishing between legitimate technological innovation and unlawful algorithmic coordination. ³
The distinction between unilateral conduct and concerted action remains central to this analysis. Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits agreements in restraint of trade but does not prohibit firms from independently pursuing profit-maximizing strategies through lawful technology. If competing firms merely adopt similar software tools independently, courts may conclude that resulting pricing similarities reflect lawful conscious parallelism rather than conspiracy. Plaintiffs therefore must establish that defendants knowingly participated in a coordinated arrangement involving shared data, centralized pricing recommendations, or other mechanisms plausibly suggesting agreement. ³
Algorithmic-pricing cases also present unique evidentiary challenges. Traditional conspiracy cases often relied upon witness testimony, written agreements, or recorded communications demonstrating explicit coordination. Modern pricing systems instead involve complex software architectures, machine-learning models, and proprietary algorithms that may be difficult for courts and juries to evaluate. Discovery disputes concerning source code, trade secrets, and algorithmic transparency are therefore likely to become increasingly significant in future litigation. Plaintiffs may struggle to prove precisely how algorithms operate, while defendants may resist disclosure of confidential software designs and business methodologies. ¹
The housing-market context of the RealPage litigation further intensifies public and regulatory concern. Rising rental costs across the United States have generated substantial political pressure for increased oversight of housing markets. Plaintiffs and regulators argue that algorithmic rent coordination exacerbates affordability crises by artificially inflating prices in already constrained markets. Because housing constitutes a basic necessity, allegations involving coordinated rental pricing carry broader social and political implications than many traditional antitrust disputes. ¹
The litigation also highlights the growing importance of data-sharing practices in antitrust analysis. Competitively sensitive information exchanges have long attracted scrutiny because they may reduce uncertainty and facilitate coordinated conduct among rivals. Revenue-management platforms frequently depend upon extensive data aggregation systems in which competing firms provide detailed operational information to centralized intermediaries. Plaintiffs increasingly argue that these arrangements create the infrastructure necessary for coordinated market behavior. ¹
The legal risks associated with algorithmic pricing extend beyond residential housing. Numerous industries now rely upon sophisticated pricing technologies capable of monitoring market behavior and generating automated recommendations. Airlines, hotels, healthcare providers, online retailers, rideshare companies, and e-commerce platforms increasingly use dynamic pricing algorithms to adjust prices in real time. As regulators continue scrutinizing these technologies, businesses across multiple sectors may face heightened antitrust exposure. ¹
Businesses utilizing revenue-management software should therefore carefully evaluate their antitrust compliance policies. Companies should assess whether their pricing systems involve exchanges of non-public competitor information, whether software providers aggregate competitively sensitive data, and whether algorithmic recommendations could be construed as facilitating coordinated pricing behavior. Firms should also ensure that employees retain meaningful independent authority over pricing decisions rather than mechanically implementing software-generated recommendations. Maintaining documentation demonstrating independent business judgment may become increasingly important in defending future litigation. ¹
Software developers themselves also face growing exposure. Plaintiffs increasingly characterize pricing-platform providers as central “hubs” facilitating unlawful coordination among competing firms. Under traditional hub-and-spoke conspiracy theories, a central intermediary may incur liability when coordinating agreements among horizontal competitors. Plaintiffs in algorithmic-pricing cases often argue that software providers act as the hub while participating firms constitute the spokes in a coordinated pricing arrangement. Courts will likely continue grappling with whether technology providers may be held directly liable for designing systems that allegedly facilitate anticompetitive outcomes.⁴
Ultimately, the rise of algorithmic-pricing litigation reflects the continuing evolution of antitrust law alongside technological innovation. Courts are now confronting difficult questions concerning artificial intelligence, automated decision-making, data aggregation, and digital market coordination. Although existing Sherman Act principles remain adaptable, cases such as RealPage may significantly influence how courts define agreement, concerted action, and collusion in the era of algorithmic commerce. ¹ Businesses adopting advanced pricing technologies must therefore recognize that innovation does not eliminate antitrust risk. To the contrary, the increasing sophistication of revenue-management software may heighten scrutiny precisely because such systems can potentially replicate the effects of traditional cartel behavior with greater speed, efficiency, and durability.¹
Contact Tishkoff
Tishkoff PLC specializes in business law and litigation. For inquiries, contact us at www.tish.law/contact/. & check out Tishkoff PLC’s Website (www.Tish.Law/), eBooks (www.Tish.Law/e-books), Blogs (www.Tish.Law/blog) and References (www.Tish.Law/resources).
Footnotes and Sources
1- In re RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 3071, No. 3:23-md-03071 (M.D. Tenn.); United States Department of Justice Statement of Interest filed in the action. https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/418053a.pdf
2- Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1
3- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/544/
4- Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (1939). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/306/208/
5- In re Travel Agent Commission Antitrust Litigation, 583 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2009). https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/in-re-travel-agent-884647099
6- Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., 648 F.3d 452 (6th Cir. 2011). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/tennessee/tnmdce/3:2009cv00487/44811/255/