3 ms·

This is not appropriate for the DOJ to be taking up. They have nearly unlimited resources and have far bigger fish to fry. The appropriate enforcement agencies

This is not appropriate for the DOJ to be taking up. They have nearly unlimited resources and have far bigger fish to fry. The appropriate enforcement agencies are the States' Attorneys General. If they feel that their constituents are being harmed, they can take it up with the courts. There is certainly zero evidence that RealPage has any sort of monopoly. The DOJ would have named that evidence in their press release if they had any evidence at all that RealPage possessed any sort of monopoly power. This isn't the National Assoc of Realtors (which obviously does actually have strong monopoly power), and where is the DOJ when the NAR lawsuits have been going on for the last several years? So, the Sherman Antitrust Act claims are tenuous at best. As it stands, this seems to be a ham-handed attempt to seek a consent decree for clumsy price-fixing, setting maximum rent prices, nationwide, without any appropriate legislation, as an end-run around Congress. And that will actually harm consumers.

abduhl 2y ago
>> this seem to be a ham-handed attempt to seek a consent decree to create minimum rent prices, nationwide, without any appropriate legislation. And that will actually harm consumers. Where does this contention come from? What makes it “seem” like this is the goal of the DOJ to you?
- gunapologist99 2y ago
  The DOJ has not a prayer of proving that RealPage (or its clients or whatever) controls more than a tiny minority of the housing market, because it just doesn't. This is a tiny tiny fraction of all housing nationwide. So, since it can't do that and actually win this case on that basis, but on the other hand has virtually unlimited resources to string this out indefinitely, it's after something else. So, what do you think that could be? My guess is that this is an attempt at forcing these complexes into a price-setting consent decree. (by the way, thanks for actually responding with a criticism. A lot of time people just signal they disagree but they can't be bothered or can't articulate a real response. I do appreciate the substantive argument even if we might disagree)

abduhl 2y ago

>> this seem to be a ham-handed attempt to seek a consent decree to create minimum rent prices, nationwide, without any appropriate legislation. And that will actually harm consumers. Where does this contention come from? What makes it “seem” like this is the goal of the DOJ to you?

gunapologist99 2y ago
The DOJ has not a prayer of proving that RealPage (or its clients or whatever) controls more than a tiny minority of the housing market, because it just doesn't. This is a tiny tiny fraction of all housing nationwide. So, since it can't do that and actually win this case on that basis, but on the other hand has virtually unlimited resources to string this out indefinitely, it's after something else. So, what do you think that could be? My guess is that this is an attempt at forcing these complexes into a price-setting consent decree. (by the way, thanks for actually responding with a criticism. A lot of time people just signal they disagree but they can't be bothered or can't articulate a real response. I do appreciate the substantive argument even if we might disagree)