The Dual Front: Private Class Action vs. Government Enforcement

The landscape is complicated by the fact that this pricing debate is being fought simultaneously on at least two major fronts: the private class action MDL in Tennessee and the governmental antitrust enforcement actions, primarily led by the DOJ.

The Fate of the Landlord Defendants: Settlement or Trial

The immediate trajectory hinges on Judge Crenshaw’s decision regarding the private settlements. If the judge accepts the proposed agreements—a finding that they are fair, reasonable, and adequate—the private class action against those 26 settling defendants will effectively conclude for them. This means payouts to class members and the release of those specific landlords from further liability in the MDL docket.

Conversely, if Judge Crenshaw rejects the settlements—a move encouraged by the state AGs due to the perceived inadequacy of the relief—the litigation against those specific defendants snaps back into full pretrial preparation. This rejection significantly raises the stakes for those landlords. They face massive, increased litigation costs, expert discovery battles, and the very real uncertainty of a jury trial where the potential liability could far exceed the current settlement offers. Such a rejection could force them back to the negotiating table with the private plaintiffs on new terms, or it could solidify their resolve to fight every claim to a final verdict, believing they can beat the allegations in court.

This procedural fork in the road is what gives the October 2025 state AG objections such potency—they are betting that a judicial rejection will compel the landlord defendants to offer better terms that don’t compromise state enforcement efforts.. Find out more about RealPage MDL settlement approval status Tennessee.

The Unwavering Federal Case: DOJ and State AGs

Crucially, the private settlement outcome, win or lose, will not determine the fate of the federal government’s case. The DOJ’s antitrust action, which initially filed in August 2024 and was amended in January 2025 to add more landlord defendants, will proceed irrespective of the private outcome.

The DOJ’s case targets the core illegality of the *system* and RealPage itself. Furthermore, the government’s position is reinforced by parallel actions and agreements with major former defendants. For instance, consent decrees have been reported with entities like Greystar, filed in August 2025, and Cortland, which was added as a defendant in January 2025 and has also entered into an agreement requiring them to cooperate with the DOJ. These settlements often require structural changes—like stopping the use of the software or developing new compliance policies—that go beyond mere monetary relief.

The ultimate legal precedent concerning algorithmic pricing in the American housing industry will likely be set not by the private settlements flowing from the Tennessee MDL, but by the judgments reached in the federal court battles over the legality of using proprietary data to power these revenue management systems. The DOJ is pursuing injunctive relief aimed at preventing this conduct entirely, a far broader goal than the monetary compensation sought by the private plaintiffs.

Key Procedural Comparison:

Economic Context for 2025: The Political Economy of Rent

To truly grasp the gravity of the procedural maneuvering in Tennessee, one must appreciate the economic stakes as we stand in late two thousand twenty-five. The issue has moved far beyond technical antitrust law; it has become a central plank of the national conversation on economic fairness.

The Role of Technology in Market Perception

Technology’s role in modern commerce is multifaceted. On one hand, it promises efficiency and lower costs. On the other, when deployed in essential markets like housing, it introduces novel forms of market power. The narrative surrounding RealPage is that it transforms competition among landlords from a decentralized activity into a centralized, coordinated one, effectively creating an artificial oligopoly where pricing power is centralized, even if the *ownership* of the properties remains distributed.

Example Insight: While we cannot cite specific, real-time national vacancy rates for November 2025 without further search, the general trend preceding this year involved historically low vacancy rates in many urban centers. The defense argues that in such an environment, the algorithm is merely performing the necessary function of matching scarce supply with high demand, thereby maximizing return for asset owners—a legal and economic function. The plaintiffs argue that the algorithm *inflates* the market-clearing price beyond what dispersed, independent actors would naturally set.. Find out more about Antitrust claims against RealPage algorithmic pricing software tips.

Legislative Echoes and Regulatory Pressure

The legal pressure is mirrored by legislative activity across the country. Even as the MDL proceeds, various state and local governments have intensified scrutiny on rent stabilization and algorithmic transparency. The outcome of the DOJ case, in particular, will have a chilling effect across the entire industry far beyond the scope of the initial class members. This regulatory pressure creates an additional layer of risk for the defendants still fighting the cases.

For instance, the addition of major property management entities to the DOJ complaint in early 2025 signals that the enforcement agencies believe they have substantial evidence to prove not just an agreement, but an unlawful maintenance of monopoly power over the revenue management software market itself. This suggests the DOJ is aiming for a systemic change, forcing competitors into different business models or requiring significant structural separation between data aggregation and price recommendation.

The current legal environment is characterized by heightened regulatory scrutiny for any technology that touches essential services. Renters, advocates, and legislators are watching this case as a proving ground for how antitrust law will adapt to the age of big data in essential service markets. You can find more on this evolving regulatory landscape by reviewing recent reports on technology and antitrust regulation.

Anticipating the Next Moves: Trajectory After the Ruling

As two thousand twenty-five concludes, the immediate future of this entire dispute is functionally paused, waiting for the federal judge’s critical ruling. This moment is the procedural fulcrum upon which the next two years of litigation will pivot.. Find out more about Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. RealPage ruling strategies.

Scenario 1: The Judge Grants Final Approval

If Judge Crenshaw approves the proposed settlements—a decision he could potentially issue any day now, given the October objections—the immediate effect is closure for the settling defendants. Payouts would commence, though the speed of distribution can vary based on the complexity of subclass definition and administrative overhead. For the vast majority of private plaintiffs, this means a guaranteed, albeit potentially small, recovery, and the end of their involvement in the Tennessee MDL.

This scenario would significantly reduce the immediate resource drain for the settling landlords, allowing them to refocus on operational issues rather than managing the constant churn of discovery demands from the private bar. However, it would simultaneously empower the state AGs, who could argue that the inadequate private relief underscores the necessity of their own, potentially more severe, enforcement actions against the remaining or un-settled defendants.

Scenario 2: The Judge Rejects the Settlements

Rejection would be a procedural shockwave. It would signal that the judge found the relief offered insufficient to satisfy the due process rights of the class members or that the injunctive relief was too narrow, particularly in light of the state AGs’ concerns.. Find out more about RealPage MDL settlement approval status Tennessee overview.

If rejected, the case reverts to its previous posture against those defendants who had sought resolution via settlement. They would then face the prospect of renewed, intensive, and expensive discovery and trial preparation against the private plaintiffs. This outcome often leads to one of two subsequent paths:

This rejection would be a procedural win for the state and federal enforcers, as it keeps the pressure on the largest entities and prevents a potentially low-value resolution from limiting their own legal scope.

The DOJ’s Independent Track

Regardless of what happens with the private settlements, the DOJ’s case against RealPage and any remaining, un-settled landlord defendants (such as Greystar and Cortland, who are party to separate consent decrees but whose main litigation continues) will maintain its momentum. The federal government has secured significant concessions from certain major players, which often serves as evidence in the remaining, broader antitrust action. The DOJ’s goal remains focused on establishing the overarching illegality of the algorithmic pricing scheme under the Sherman Act, which has implications for the entire software industry, not just the specific rental properties in the MDL.. Find out more about States opposing RealPage private class action settlement definition guide.

For readers tracking the broader legal implications, it is vital to follow the filings in the DOJ case, as the precedent set there will govern the future business model of algorithmic pricing far more than any single class action payout. Understanding the scope of DOJ antitrust enforcement strategy provides a crucial macro view.

Conclusion: What Renters and Owners Must Watch For

The procedural mechanics of the Multidistrict Litigation in Tennessee have brought us to a moment of high anticipation. The consolidation ordered in two thousand twenty-three has served its purpose in streamlining the pretrial work, culminating in the current focus on the proposed settlements filed in late two thousand twenty-five. As of November 7, 2025, Judge Crenshaw’s impending decision is the primary catalyst for the next phase.

The key takeaways are clear:

Actionable Insight for Landlords: If the settlements are approved, focus immediately on the release language and compliance protocols to ensure no lingering liability under the state or federal actions. If rejected, prepare for a significant and costly ramp-up in formal discovery against the defendants who had previously sought to exit the case.

Actionable Insight for Renters: Watch for official notices regarding the final ruling. If approved, understand the claims process timeline. If rejected, recognize that a potentially larger, though longer, recovery process is likely back on the table.

This legal drama is more than just lawyers arguing over dollars; it’s a fundamental confrontation over how technology intersects with essential markets in modern America. The answer handed down from the Middle District of Tennessee will echo through housing markets for years to come. What do you believe is the most critical factor Judge Crenshaw must weigh in his decision—efficiency, monetary relief, or the integrity of parallel state actions? Let us know your thoughts below.

To stay ahead of the curve on how these decisions reshape real-estate litigation outcomes, be sure to follow these crucial dockets.