Ford sponsors bill to confront ‘unfair' pricing
With the Trump administration indicating little interest in the federal government's consumer protection role, it could be up to states to prohibit and prevent corporate landlords from using algorithm software to inflate rents via price fixing.
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford has brought forward Assembly Bill 44 to regulate price fixing of essential goods and services, including shelter, food and medicine.
Ford's office declined to say how the legislation, if passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the governor this year, would specifically address alleged practices by real estate software companies, like RealPage, that are being investigated for price fixing rents.
'We can't address hypotheticals about specific companies but to the extent any business' operation violates the provisions as laid out in AB 44, our office will not hesitate to utilize the statute to protect Nevada's consumers,' the office said in an email.
The White House Council of Economic Advisors under former President Joe Biden released an analysis in mid-December that found RealPage and other firms that market rent price algorithms r likely cost renters more than $3.8 billion in 2023.
Rent-pricing algorithms added on average $92 a month for units in Las Vegas that use such software, according to the report. The national average was $70 per month.
'Our analysis indicates that if price coordination was eliminated, there would be an economically meaningful decrease in price mark-ups for rental units using pricing algorithms,' the report found.
The White House has since removed the analysis from the website after President Donald Trump returned to office last month.
A ProPublica investigation from 2022 found rental pricing software by RealPage used algorithms to collect lease transaction data and advertised rates. The data was used to effectively tell landlords the highest rent an apartment applicant is able to pay, and then charge it.
Greystar, one of the nation's largest property management firms, featured prominently in the investigation. Greystar lists 44 apartment complexes under its management in Southern Nevada and five in the Reno area.
Currently more than 30 lawsuits nationwide allege RealPage has colluded with corporate landlords to inflate rent prices
The U.S. Department of Justice, along with Attorneys General of North Carolina, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington, filed a lawsuit against the company in August 2023 alleging it violated antitrust laws.
The department expanded its antitrust lawsuit in early January, prior to Trump's inauguration.
'RealPage will continue to aggressively defend itself in the remaining, previously filed civil lawsuits, which we believe are wholly without merit,' RealPage said in a statement in December. 'RealPage's revenue management software is purposely built to be legally compliant, enhances competition throughout the rental housing ecosystem and is highly configurable by our customers.'
The future of the lawsuit remains uncertain under the new administration.
Ben Iness, the coalition coordinator for the Nevada Housing Justice Alliance, said the state needs to take 'a bold and brave stance' to regulate the practice.
Some states, including Washington, have introduced bills to specifically prohibit landlords from using software that collect rental data to fix prices.
Lawmakers in New Jersey sought to make algorithmic systems unlawful, noting it would violate the New Jersey Antitrust Act.
In an email to Nevada Current, Ford said 'AB44 is designed to curb unfair methods of increasing prices' in general and would attempt to regulate price fixing essential goods and services under the Nevada Unfair Trade Practice Act.
The legislation, Ford added, stemmed from 'several investigations and litigations my office has been active in during my time as Attorney General.' He said details of those investigations are not yet public.
'These investigations and litigations have to do with the prices of essential goods and services like food, medicine, shelter, and the ability of companies to raise those prices to levels that impact consumers ability to purchase them,' he said.
The threshold for violating the law under the bill is when a person pays 'more than $750 for the good or service over a 30-day period or $9,000 for the good or service over a 1-year period.'
When asked about the threshold amounts, Ford said he was looking to 'balance the concerns of various industries with the need to curb the unfair practices that take advantage of consumers who must have regular, continual access to essential goods and services.'
He anticipated 'further discussions on these thresholds to occur throughout the legislation session.'
Iness noted that while the legislation is significant and has the potential to rein in rent-price fixing, the bill 'in the current form is broad and vague.'
He urged lawmakers to 'explicitly name' the practices they are looking to regulate.
'I would love, during that hearing, that they talk about housing scarcity, cost fixing and the exploitative factors around renting,' he said.
Lawmakers are expected to introduce a variety of bills this session to address the state's housing shortage and costs, as well as a landlord-tenant regulatory framework in Nevada that critics say is uniquely landlord hostile compared to most states.
Gov. Joe Lombardo named housing as one of his top legislation priorities in his state of the state address last month, and called on $1 billion in new attainable housing units, supported by some direct state spending, the Nevada State Infrastructure Bank, and bonds. The details of that legislation have yet to be released.
Iness said addressing the housing crisis needs to go beyond building more units and include expanding tenant protections.
'If folks are going to take our housing crisis seriously they need to look at all sides of it and not just the one-dimensional supply and demand approach,' Iness said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
11 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump administration's lawsuit over Chicago's sanctuary city policies tossed by federal judge
A federal judge on Friday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit challenging sanctuary city policies in Chicago and the state of Illinois. The Justice Department sued Illinois, Cook County and the city of Chicago — along with several state and local officials, including Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson — in February, arguing their sanctuary laws 'interfere' with Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) ability to arrest and deport illegal migrants. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, concluded that sanctuary policies — which prohibit local law enforcement from cooperating with federal authorities on immigration enforcement — are protected by the 10th Amendment. 6 Federal agents detain a protester attempting to block US ICE agents from entering a building housing an immigration court in Chicago, Ill. on June 16, 2025. REUTERS '[T]he Sanctuary Policies reflect Defendants' decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law — a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment and not preempted by [federal immigration laws],' Jenkins wrote in her 64-page ruling. 'Finding that these same Policy provisions constitute discrimination or impermissible regulation would provide an end-run around the Tenth Amendment,' the judge continued. 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity — the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment.' Jenkins also determined that the Trump administration lacked standing to sue the 'individual defendants' named in the case, such as Pritzker and Cook. She dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, meaning the Trump administration may amend its complaint if it wishes to continue litigating the issue. In their lawsuit, the Trump administration singled out the Illinois Trust Act and Chicago's Welcoming City ordinance. 6 President Donald Trump speaks to reporters outside the White House on July 25, 2025. Ron Sachs/CNP / The Trust Act declares that 'State law does not currently grant State or local law enforcement the authority to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' while the Welcoming City ordinance emphatically states, 'No agency or agent shall: arrest, detain or continue to detain a person solely on the belief that the person is not present legally in the United States.' Pritzker and Johnson celebrated the judge's ruling. 'Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court,' the governor wrote on X. 'Their case challenging the bipartisan TRUST Act was dismissed — unlike the President, we follow the law and listen to the courts.' 6 Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker speaks after a meeting in the governor's office in Chicago on April 7, 2023. Getty Images Meanwhile, Johnson tweeted that the ruling 'affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety.' 'Chicago cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda,' the mayor added. 'Our city is safer when local law enforcement can focus on the needs of Chicagoans.' 6 Lindsay C. Jenkins, US district judge for the Northern District of Illinois nominee, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on Oct. 12, 2022. REUTERS 6 Protesters hold up a sign opposing President Trump outside Trump Tower in Chicago during a rally on Jan. 20, 2025. AP The ruling is a setback to the Trump administration, which earlier this week sued New York City and Mayor Eric Adams over Gotham's sanctuary city policies — similarly arguing that rules limiting the NYPD's and other law enforcement agencies' cooperation with federal immigration enforcement are unconstitutional. The move came after two illegal migrants allegedly shot an off-duty Customs and Border Protection officer in the face in a Manhattan park. Attorney General Pam Bondi filed suit against Chicago and the state of Illinois on her first day on the job at DOJ. 6 Federal agents hold back a protester during an ICE exercise outside an immigration court in Chicago on June 16, 2025. REUTERS Bondi teased that the lawsuit would be the first of several going after sanctuary policies in Democrat-run states and cities. 'If you are a leader of a state or local jurisdiction that obstructs or impedes federal law enforcement, you will be next,' Bondi said in February. The DOJ has since filed lawsuits against New York City, Los Angeles, Newark, Jersey City, Paterson and Hoboken over sanctuary laws. The White House and DOJ did not immediately respond to The Post's requests for comment.
CNN
12 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump Doesn't Rule Out Pardon For Ghislaine Maxwell - Laura Coates Live - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Trump Doesn't Rule Out Pardon For Ghislaine Maxwell Laura Coates Live 47 mins President Donald Trump denied again today that he was briefed on his name appearing in files tied to the Jeffrey Epstein case, despite reports by CNN and other outlets on the briefing. The administration remains dogged by public criticism over its handling of the case.
Hamilton Spectator
39 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
As the ADA turns 35, groups fighting for disability rights could see their federal dollars slashed
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Nancy Jensen believes she'd still be living in an abusive group home if it wasn't shut down in 2004 with the help of the Disability Rights Center of Kansas, which for decades has received federal money to look out for Americans with disabilities. But the flow of funding under the Trump administration is now in question, disability rights groups nationwide say, dampening their mood as Saturday marks the 35th anniversary of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act. Federal dollars pay for much of their work, including helping people who seek government-funded services and lawsuits now pushing Iowa and Texas toward better community services. Documents outlining President Donald Trump's budget proposals show they would zero out funds earmarked for three grants to disability rights centers and slash funding for a fourth. Congress' first discussion of them, by the Senate Appropriations Committee, is set for Thursday, but the centers fear losing more than 60% of their federal dollars. The threat of cuts comes as the groups expect more demand for help after Republicans' tax and budget law complicated Medicaid health coverage with a new work-reporting requirement. There's also the sting of the timing: this year is the 50th anniversary of another federal law that created the network of state groups to protect people with disabilities, and Trump's proposals represent the largest potential cuts in that half-century, advocates said. The groups are authorized to make unannounced visits to group homes and interview residents alone. 'You're going to have lots of people with disabilities lost,' said Jensen, now president of Colorado's advisory council for federal funding of efforts to protect people with mental illnesses. She worries people with disabilities will have 'no backstop' for fighting housing discrimination or seeking services at school or accommodations at work. The potential budget savings are a shaving of copper from each federal tax penny. The groups receive not quite $180 million a year — versus $1.8 trillion in discretionary spending. Trump's administration touts flexibility for sta tes The president's Office of Management and Budget didn't respond to an email seeking a response to the disability rights groups' criticism. But in budget documents, the administration argued its proposals would give states needed flexibility. The U.S. Department of Education said earmarking funds for disability rights centers created an unnecessary administrative burden for states. Trump's top budget adviser, Russell Vought, told senators in a letter that a review of 2025 spending showed too much went to 'niche' groups outside government. 'We also considered, for each program, whether the governmental service provided could be provided better by State or local governments (if provided at all),' Vought wrote. Disability rights advocates doubt that state protection and advocacy groups — known as P&As — would see any dollar not specifically earmarked for them. They sue states, so the advocates don't want states deciding whether their work gets funded. The 1975 federal law setting up P&As declared them independent of the states, and newer laws reinforced that. 'We do need an independent system that can hold them and other wrongdoers accountable,' said Rocky Nichols, the Kansas center's executive director. Helping people with disabilities navigate Medicaid Nichols' center has helped Matthew Hull for years with getting the state to cover services, and Hull hopes to find a job. He uses a wheelchair; a Medicaid-provided nurse helps him run errands. 'I need to be able to do that so I can keep my strength up,' he said, adding that activity preserves his health. Medicaid applicants often had a difficult time working through its rules even before the tax and budget law's recent changes, said Sean Jackson, Disability Rights Texas' executive director. With fewer dollars, he said, 'As cases are coming into us, we're going to have to take less cases.' The Texas group receives money from a legal aid foundation and other sources, but federal funds still are 68% of its dollars. The Kansas center and Disability Rights Iowa rely entirely on federal funds. 'For the majority it would probably be 85% or higher,' said Marlene Sallo, executive director of the National Disability Rights Network, which represents P&As. The Trump administration's proposals suggest it wants to shut down P&As, said Steven Schwartz, who founded the Center for Public Representation, a Massachusetts-based organization that works with them on lawsuits. Investigating allegations of abuse and pushing states Federal funding meant a call in 2009 to Disability Rights Iowa launched an immediate investigation of a program employing men with developmental disabilities in a turkey processing plant. Authorities said they lived in a dangerous, bug-infested bunkhouse and were financially exploited. Without the dollars, executive director Catherine Johnson said, 'That's maybe not something we could have done.' The Kansas center's private interview in 2004 with one of Jensen's fellow residents eventually led to long federal prison sentences for the couple operating the Kaufman House, a home for people with mental illnesses about 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of Wichita. And it wasn't until Disability Rights Iowa filed a federal lawsuit in 2023 that the state agreed to draft a plan to provide community services for children with severe mental and behavioral needs. For 15 years, Schwartz's group and Disability Rights Texas have pursued a federal lawsuit alleging Texas warehouses several thousand people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in nursing homes without adequate services. Texas put at least three men in homes after they'd worked in the Iowa turkey plant. Last month, a federal judge ordered work to start on a plan to end the 'severe and ongoing' problems. Schwartz said Disability Rights Texas did interviews and gathered documents crucial to the case. 'There are no better eyes or ears,' he said. ___ Hunter reported from Atlanta.
