Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Algorithmic rent-pricing litigation expands under new state and local laws

morganlewis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: Algorithmic rent-pricing litigation expands under new state and local laws

#41

Post by Nursie »

Aurornis wrote: post #26
tyre wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in NYC, which has rent control, and the idea that a landlord would otherwise lower rent is hilarious. Landlords raise rent by the max allowed because they can. There is no “catch up” because the purpose is to protect renters against huge jumps. I think rent controlled units that sit empty should be subject to a tax based on an escalating percentage of the market rent. You can own property to rent out, but in a…

> I think rent controlled units that sit empty should be subject to a tax based on an escalating percentage of the market rent They would just be taken off the market and then relisted later. Forcing people to rent their properties and also forcing the price isn’t something I can get behind. People need to be able to choose what they do with their property.

In a city or country with housing shortages or a very tight market, that’s asking a lot.

People need homes, and there is a balance to be struck for the public good.

Re: Algorithmic rent-pricing litigation expands under new state and local laws

#43

Post by crooked-v »

yonran wrote: post #40

In San Francisco, I’m not a fan of Aaron Peskin’s ban on algorithmic rent-setting (Admin Code 37.10C https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/s... ) (which is probably similar to the other cities) because 1) it goes beyond antitrust law in just banning data gathering for no good reason, and 2) it rewards bounty hunters. 1. It goes beyond antitrust guidelines by banning rent prediction using any “non…

SF as a city has the fundamental problem that there's a huge part of the electorate will blame the housing shortage on absolutely anything they can find that's not the actual fundamental physical shortage of housing. That leads to an endless tangle of local laws and organizations supposedly trying to "do something about it", that are fundamentally just making the problem worse by adding marginal cost to every new already-difficult-to-pencil housing unit.

Re: Algorithmic rent-pricing litigation expands under new state and local laws

#44

Post by crooked-v »

Nursie wrote: post #41
Aurornis wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think rent controlled units that sit empty should be subject to a tax based on an escalating percentage of the market rent They would just be taken off the market and then relisted later. Forcing people to rent their properties and also forcing the price isn’t something I can get behind. People need to be able to choose what they do with their property.

In a city or country with housing shortages or a very tight market, that’s asking a lot. People need homes, and there is a balance to be struck for the public good.

Housing shortages are a result of local policies, and rent control makes housing shortages worse (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105113772...).

Re: Algorithmic rent-pricing litigation expands under new state and local laws

#45

Post by Nursie »

crooked-v wrote: post #44
Nursie wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a city or country with housing shortages or a very tight market, that’s asking a lot. People need homes, and there is a balance to be struck for the public good.

Housing shortages are a result of local policies, and rent control makes housing shortages worse ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105113772... ).

Just as well I’m not arguing for rent control or any particular policy then isn’t it?

I’m pointing out that the “it’s my property I can do what I want” attitude needs to be balanced with public needs for housing, because society isn’t purely about optimising the content of your wallet, and extreme deregulation results in slums.

(Your linked paper there also says that rent control results in more properties having affordable rent at the low end of the market, but less overall rental property supply, indicating a reduction at the higher end. I’m good with that as a consequence, those who are better off can usually afford to get into purchasing a property. In some markets, like much of Australia, having fewer landlords and wannabe landlords competing to purchase properties would be a bonus. This actually looks like a win all round TBH.

tl;dr - congrats, you’ve used science to sell me on rent control)

Re: Algorithmic rent-pricing litigation expands under new state and local laws

#46

Post by consensus1 »

Nursie wrote: post #41
Aurornis wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think rent controlled units that sit empty should be subject to a tax based on an escalating percentage of the market rent They would just be taken off the market and then relisted later. Forcing people to rent their properties and also forcing the price isn’t something I can get behind. People need to be able to choose what they do with their property.

In a city or country with housing shortages or a very tight market, that’s asking a lot. People need homes, and there is a balance to be struck for the public good.

The people imposing the rent control are the same people responsible for the shortage, so I just can't get behind that.

Re: Algorithmic rent-pricing litigation expands under new state and local laws

#47

Post by stymaar »

yonran wrote: post #40

In San Francisco, I’m not a fan of Aaron Peskin’s ban on algorithmic rent-setting (Admin Code 37.10C https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/s... ) (which is probably similar to the other cities) because 1) it goes beyond antitrust law in just banning data gathering for no good reason, and 2) it rewards bounty hunters. 1. It goes beyond antitrust guidelines by banning rent prediction using any “non…

> The point seems to be to punish landlords more than it is to establish fair rules.

Rules without punishments are useless though.

Re: Algorithmic rent-pricing litigation expands under new state and local laws

#48

Post by classified »

Aurornis wrote: post #26
tyre wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in NYC, which has rent control, and the idea that a landlord would otherwise lower rent is hilarious. Landlords raise rent by the max allowed because they can. There is no “catch up” because the purpose is to protect renters against huge jumps. I think rent controlled units that sit empty should be subject to a tax based on an escalating percentage of the market rent. You can own property to rent out, but in a…

> I think rent controlled units that sit empty should be subject to a tax based on an escalating percentage of the market rent They would just be taken off the market and then relisted later. Forcing people to rent their properties and also forcing the price isn’t something I can get behind. People need to be able to choose what they do with their property.

If the thing you own happens to be essential for other people's lives, and in short supply to boot, it would be irresponsible to leave all the decisions to you.

Re: Algorithmic rent-pricing litigation expands under new state and local laws

#49

Post by taurath »

aorloff wrote: post #7

In the People's Republic of Berkeley, our City Council patted themselves on the back in March 2025 when they passed similar laws. Then they got sued by the company that was targeted, and immediately waffled and canceled the ban. What's insane about all of this is that we also have Rent Control. There is no greater price fixing mechanism than Rent Control. Rent Control ensures that all landlords must seek the highest…

There are arguments against rent control as an analgesic, but it being a disincentive for landlord/investor altruism isn’t one of them.

Re: Algorithmic rent-pricing litigation expands under new state and local laws

#50

Post by yonran »

stymaar wrote: post #47
yonran wrote: post #40

In San Francisco, I’m not a fan of Aaron Peskin’s ban on algorithmic rent-setting (Admin Code 37.10C https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/s... ) (which is probably similar to the other cities) because 1) it goes beyond antitrust law in just banning data gathering for no good reason, and 2) it rewards bounty hunters. 1. It goes beyond antitrust guidelines by banning rent prediction using any “non…

> The point seems to be to punish landlords more than it is to establish fair rules. Rules without punishments are useless though.

> Rules without punishments are useless though.

There’s proportional punishment based on harm, and then there are abusive booby-traps. If a landlord uses a nonpublic dataset (e.g., a vendor’s model based on year-old data that would not harm competition under the antitrust settlement), then a tenant and nonprofit can each sue for civil penalties plus attorney fees even though there is no harm.

Post reply on HN