4 ms·
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
by 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 agoYes, 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 agoThey’re kicked out if their participation isn’t sufficiently high — as spelled out in paragraph 69.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoThey 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 agoParagraph 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.