It’s a complete suite for property management companies that enables an org to manage and report on vast portfolios of thousands of units. Provides functions to local property managers such as contracts and evictions, rent collection, and purchase order management for vendors. Regionally it provides metrics and pricing controls. Other competitors like Yardi exist and provide similar toolkits, but RP is gigantic enough to get the bulk of attention.

... isn't that what Realpage does?

No it isn't.

Companies making individual decisions about pricing is legal.

Companies asking an external source (e.g. a consulting company) to help with pricing is legal.

Companies sharing nonpublic data with their competitors and setting prices collectively as a group is illegal.

The entire reason for Realpage's existence is to facilitate #3.

Wait, your #3 appears to combine multiple factors. Is it "sharing nonpublic data" that's the problem or is it "setting prices collectively" that's a problem? Those aren't the same thing. Price-setting implies a commitment not to outbid counterparties.

They are both illegal, and realpage does both.

Literally from the linked DoJ press release

> RealPage’s revenue management software has relied on nonpublic, competitively sensitive information shared by landlords to set rental prices. RealPage’s software has also included features designed to limit rental price decreases and otherwise align pricing among competitors.

The sentence you quote says Realpage used nonpublic information to facilitate the setting of prices, but does not say that the sharing of nonpublic information is itself price setting. You can do lots of things to set prices; the key feature again is a commitment against defection.

I'm not sticking up for Realpage; I don't know enough about how it works.

The software literally includes an algorithm that says "this week, you will set the rate for this apartment at $X" based on RP's data.

And, if you want to deviate from that, without being kicked off RP and losing your substantial fee payments, you will do follow that rate (and they tell you that they _will_ check), or you can "request an override" from RealPage, that they may allow or deny at their discretion (and RP agents are formally trained that override approvals may not exceed 5% of requests).

> Consistent with their agreement to impose rents generated by RealPage RM Software nearly all the time, Defendants agreed to limit overrides. For example, a RealPage LRO training document states: “Overrides should be few and far between.” Similarly, internal RealPage LRO training documents teach cartel members’ regional managers to beware of “Override Overload” or “rogue” leasing agents who too frequently override the LRO-generated pricing.

> An internal presentation created by Defendant Greystar explicitly acknowledges that RealPage RM Software users should each seek to accept at least 95% of the RealPage-generated prices, emphasizing that “Discipline [o]f using revenue management increases more consistent outcomes.”

> Former Greystar employees have similarly confirmed that negotiating rents other than those set by the RealPage RM Software was unacceptable.

> Even where Participating Landlords do not enable auto-accept, most landlords cannot, on their own, charge rents other than those generated by RealPage’s RM Software— landlords can only “propose an override.” The landlord must then provide a written business justification for why they wish to depart from the RealPage-generated rent.

See, all this sounds pretty compelling! I was just stuck on the "confidential information sharing" part of it; that alone, I don't think? could be the basis of an antitrust claim?