4 ms·

They spell it out explicitly, starting in section two. And so obviously do so, I can’t take your comment as in good faith. https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/fil

They spell it out explicitly, starting in section two. And so obviously do so, I can’t take your comment as in good faith. https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/DC%20OAG%20RealPage%20Complaint%20-%20Filed.pdf https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/DC%20OAG%20Re... Eg, paragraph 57 spells out exactly the allegation you’re saying isn’t there.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Keep in mind you are reading a complaint, and not a decision, so it is obviously biased. Also, I think there is a pretty big difference between enforcing compliance and saying "we think you will make the most if you list at the recommended price". Where would you draw the line for collusion? Simple information sharing? Recommending listing within 10% of the mean? Punishments for deviating from the mean? Actively setting and listing the price for the landlord. By my reading, RealPage may be engaging in collusion in the cases where it actively manages and sets prices for landlords (e.g. the AutoPilot service), but not in the cases where it simply reports and recommends a price. Im guessing they will have to discontinue the service offerings where they take the control and responsibility for setting the price and listing it on behalf of the landlord
- jeffbee 3y ago
  You've been downvoted for critical reading. You're right though. Paragraph 57 in the complaint in no way supports the "must" compliance allegations in the cited blog. Ability to perceive that isn't even first-year law school stuff, it's LSAT stuff.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Yes, The closest I could find to a penalty in the complaint is that Landlords are asked to explain why they are pricing outside the range, or may receive a call from Realpage for information
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      They’re kicked out if their participation isn’t sufficiently high — as spelled out in paragraph 69.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        They make a lot of bold claims in paragraph 69 you mean. The only evidence is some employee said "sometimes we were happy to see people go" Looking past the bluster at the statements of fact, I don't see anything supporting it in the doc. Thats why they have to lean so hard on text questionnaire and phone calls in the he other section as a cartel enforcement method.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    Paragraph 57 supports the second quote, directly. Paragraphs 64-70 support the first quote. You’re correct that this is LSAT level, which is why it’s so shocking that you’re not able to read a few pages that are clearly labeled.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Keep in mind you are reading a complaint, and not a decision, so it is obviously biased. Also, I think there is a pretty big difference between enforcing compliance and saying "we think you will make the most if you list at the recommended price". Where would you draw the line for collusion? Simple information sharing? Recommending listing within 10% of the mean? Punishments for deviating from the mean? Actively setting and listing the price for the landlord. By my reading, RealPage may be engaging in collusion in the cases where it actively manages and sets prices for landlords (e.g. the AutoPilot service), but not in the cases where it simply reports and recommends a price. Im guessing they will have to discontinue the service offerings where they take the control and responsibility for setting the price and listing it on behalf of the landlord

jeffbee 3y ago
You've been downvoted for critical reading. You're right though. Paragraph 57 in the complaint in no way supports the "must" compliance allegations in the cited blog. Ability to perceive that isn't even first-year law school stuff, it's LSAT stuff.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Yes, The closest I could find to a penalty in the complaint is that Landlords are asked to explain why they are pricing outside the range, or may receive a call from Realpage for information
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    They’re kicked out if their participation isn’t sufficiently high — as spelled out in paragraph 69.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      They make a lot of bold claims in paragraph 69 you mean. The only evidence is some employee said "sometimes we were happy to see people go" Looking past the bluster at the statements of fact, I don't see anything supporting it in the doc. Thats why they have to lean so hard on text questionnaire and phone calls in the he other section as a cartel enforcement method.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  Paragraph 57 supports the second quote, directly. Paragraphs 64-70 support the first quote. You’re correct that this is LSAT level, which is why it’s so shocking that you’re not able to read a few pages that are clearly labeled.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]