Landlords and property managers can’t collude on rental pricing. Using new technology to do it doesn’t change that antitrust fundamental. Regardless of the industry you’re in, if your business uses an algorithm to determine prices, a brief filed by the FTC and the Department of Justice offers a helpful guideline for antitrust compliance: your algorithm can’t do anything that would be illegal if done by a real person.
I just read the joint legal brief, and, I have to say up front that I am not remotely a lawyer… but the document specifies how and where to identify price fixing, and that motions to dismiss those charges are to be dismissed.
So it doesn’t dictate the penalties for price fixing (I assume that’s on a trial by trial basis—but again, not a lawyer), but it makes it impossible(?) to ignore, and suggests that (to me), users of ‘RENTMaximizer’ will be in the crosshairs… while not actually stating that.
There will be an investigation into the algorithms you use to estimate optimism, to make sure you do not collude with Hopelords to inflate optimism quotients and rob hopees through conspiracy.
Do not resist.
Mm… again not a lawyer, but I think that question goes beyond the scope of the document.
It basically gives the government permission to hold renters accountable for using software to artificially raise prices. What form that accountability takes is not addressed. Either that’s covered under existing collusion laws or is up to the courts.
So, it’s an essential ingredient to the cake that you’re describing… but unless prosecution (or whatever the term actually is) brings that up (I assume?), it won’t happen.
Lots of people act like justice never comes from the Federal government to corporations, as if FaceBook isn’t paying Billions in FTC fines for the next 2 decades. Punishments get dolled out all the time, but nobody talks about it.
Why would people care? Even if we assume the fine isn’t so trivial it’s just a cost of doing business people don’t get that money nor does the federal government turn around and say “Good news everyone this means we can afford universal healthcare now!”
Even if it’s not as good as a criminal prosecution, it definitely does a lot to keep for profit companies in line. Without these various fines and rulings, the world would be a much worse place.
Let us look at an example where this sort of regulation was in place, and then went away:
In March 2014, Abbott lobbied to delay implementations of and even remove FDA Regulations on baby formula which would require more frequent inspections (and therefor fines), citing that the company was already morally and monetarily incentivized to control the quality of product without the need of oversight.
Abbott Baby Formula facility in Sturgis, Michigan, was linked to the infection of 5 infants and death of 2 infants, and revealed to have shipped untested batches of formula with falsified reports from management. This lead to the inevitable shutdown of the entire facility and following nationwide shortage of infant formula.
So, yes, fining companies to keep them in line is working when the alternative is that the unchecked corporations do things so catastrophically stupid that they run their own businesses into the ground.
So, yes, fining companies to keep them in line is working when the alternative is that the unchecked corporations do things so catastrophically stupid that they run their own businesses into the ground.
I submit that such circumstances are rare, and that the usual case is that fines are a tiny fraction of the money companies being in by breaking the law.
That type of direct agreement is not necessary to prove collusion (makes it easier to prosecute certainly) but intent doesn’t matter legally. Using a software that has an inbuilt collusion algorithm is still collusion. This is also on a larger scale than mom+pop these algorithms and software were/are used by much larger companies that own magnitudes more units.
And immediate consequences will result for the violators I assume?
I just read the joint legal brief, and, I have to say up front that I am not remotely a lawyer… but the document specifies how and where to identify price fixing, and that motions to dismiss those charges are to be dismissed.
So it doesn’t dictate the penalties for price fixing (I assume that’s on a trial by trial basis—but again, not a lawyer), but it makes it impossible(?) to ignore, and suggests that (to me), users of ‘RENTMaximizer’ will be in the crosshairs… while not actually stating that.
Thanks, friend. My optimism has increased by 3-5%. It now sits at 3-5%. (Seriously, thanks though. That’s some quality researching)
There will be an investigation into the algorithms you use to estimate optimism, to make sure you do not collude with Hopelords to inflate optimism quotients and rob hopees through conspiracy. Do not resist.
Does penalties in this case also mean compensation of the renters, whose wealth has been potentially robbed through illegal practices?
Mm… again not a lawyer, but I think that question goes beyond the scope of the document.
It basically gives the government permission to hold renters accountable for using software to artificially raise prices. What form that accountability takes is not addressed. Either that’s covered under existing collusion laws or is up to the courts.
So, it’s an essential ingredient to the cake that you’re describing… but unless prosecution (or whatever the term actually is) brings that up (I assume?), it won’t happen.
Only if you have the legal funds to take a landlord megacorp to court
The AZ Attorney General seems to be working on it at least.
https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-mayes-sues-realpage-and-residential-landlords-illegal-price-fixing
Lots of people act like justice never comes from the Federal government to corporations, as if FaceBook isn’t paying Billions in FTC fines for the next 2 decades. Punishments get dolled out all the time, but nobody talks about it.
Why would people care? Even if we assume the fine isn’t so trivial it’s just a cost of doing business people don’t get that money nor does the federal government turn around and say “Good news everyone this means we can afford universal healthcare now!”
Even if it’s not as good as a criminal prosecution, it definitely does a lot to keep for profit companies in line. Without these various fines and rulings, the world would be a much worse place.
Does it? Because gestures broadly at the entire economy.
Let us look at an example where this sort of regulation was in place, and then went away:
In March 2014, Abbott lobbied to delay implementations of and even remove FDA Regulations on baby formula which would require more frequent inspections (and therefor fines), citing that the company was already morally and monetarily incentivized to control the quality of product without the need of oversight.
Abbott Baby Formula facility in Sturgis, Michigan, was linked to the infection of 5 infants and death of 2 infants, and revealed to have shipped untested batches of formula with falsified reports from management. This lead to the inevitable shutdown of the entire facility and following nationwide shortage of infant formula.
So, yes, fining companies to keep them in line is working when the alternative is that the unchecked corporations do things so catastrophically stupid that they run their own businesses into the ground.
I submit that such circumstances are rare, and that the usual case is that fines are a tiny fraction of the money companies being in by breaking the law.
Sure, I never argued otherwise.
Removed by mod
That type of direct agreement is not necessary to prove collusion (makes it easier to prosecute certainly) but intent doesn’t matter legally. Using a software that has an inbuilt collusion algorithm is still collusion. This is also on a larger scale than mom+pop these algorithms and software were/are used by much larger companies that own magnitudes more units.
Their stance is “if it’s illegal for a person to do it, it’s illegal for an algorithm to do it”
If you use a 3rd party to collude, that’s still collusion. Here, that algorithm is the third party
The joint legal brief clarifies that it is indeed collusion. And continues to explain how this is a technological evolution of the handshake.
Interesting. To my non-lawyer mind, use of these types of algorithms is collusion by definition.
The FTC agrees.
Yes, the person you are replying to may not have the most accurate take on the situation.
On the internet? It can’t be!
Sorry, no.