> The law doesn't have to prove that Bob is talking with Alice and prove that they're discussing how to raise rents with each other. Prosecutors just need to de

> The law doesn't have to prove that Bob is talking with Alice and prove that they're discussing how to raise rents with each other. Prosecutors just need to demonstrate that Bob and Alice are both doing the same things, around the same time, which contribute towards artificial increases. While you're right about how regulators typically approach this, it's also important to note that the converse is also true. That is, if they happen to get clear proof that Alice and Bob agreed together to raise rents, then it doesn't matter if they actually succeeded in increasing rents in the area, and it doesn't even matter if they didn't follow through with the agreement: the agreement itself was illegal, and they would get an easy win in court (though damages may be low if the material impact was low, so the case may still not be worth pursuing). It is typically very rare for such direct evidence of collusion to exist, and thus indirect evidence like you suggest is normally how this is investigated. However, RealPage and the others here have provided this evidence directly: the way their price recommendation service is structured, the terms and conditions and so on, constitute direct evidence of an explicit attempt at price fixing. So, even if it turned out that all of landlords participating in this scheme actually "cheated" the price recommendation algorithm, and even if it turned out that rents went down or stayed the same when RealPage moved in, they would still be guilty of price fixing, per the FTC.