Greystar, a major apartment operator based in South Carolina, has agreed to pay $7 million to settle claims with nine states over alleged rent collusion. The settlement, reported by Bisnow, also imposes restrictions on how Greystar can use data when setting rents for its large portfolio.
The case centers on allegations that RealPage’s revenue-management software enabled landlords to share sensitive information and coordinate rent increases. According to state prosecutors, the platform—formerly known as YieldStar—functioned as a hub where landlords could exchange details about supply, demand, and pricing strategies. These concerns were first raised in a ProPublica report and led to a two-year federal investigation followed by multiple lawsuits.
As part of the agreement, Greystar will be prohibited from using or sharing nonpublic information such as occupancy rates or concession data when determining rental prices. The settlement specifies that only publicly available information can be used; Greystar cannot request proprietary details from competitors.
California is set to receive the $7 million payment, while the other eight states involved—North Carolina, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee and Massachusetts—will determine how the funds are divided among them.
The deal includes additional requirements: Greystar must appoint an antitrust compliance officer and adhere to these terms for five years. The period may be extended if any violations are found. If approved by the court, all claims against Greystar related to this case would be dismissed permanently.
RealPage declined to comment on the settlement involving its co-defendant but stated: “the lawsuits and pending legislation are political theater in an affordability crisis.”
A separate class-action lawsuit in Nashville continues against Greystar and 26 other operators. In that case, Greystar has agreed to pay $50 million as part of a broader settlement. However, attorneys general have urged the judge not to approve these settlements on grounds that they do not sufficiently address harm done to tenants.
