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

DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 646 posts

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#491

Post by willcipriano »

codedokode wrote: post #484
pixl97 wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price matching was something that really worked in the past, again in the days before mass digitization and cheap storage/printing. Add in there are only a few major retailers left, it becomes easy to make a product for each of them. CostCow will have product 0ICU812a WalWart will have product 0ICU812b Then they don't have to actually price match because they are "different products"

Online stores seem to match prices; when I google for some electronic equipment (like headphones or MIDI controllers), many stores have almost equal prices for the same item. Of course there is a chance that all they are owned by the same entity, but it is not very plausible.

That's probably the MSRP for the item. (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/manufacturers-suggested...)

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#492

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

jasode wrote: post #19

>Armed with competing landlords’ data, RealPage also encourages loyalty to the algorithm’s recommendations through, among other measures, “auto accept” functionality and pricing advisors who monitor landlords’ compliance. I think the "private prices" + "autoaccept" + "compliance" is the key misbehavior that gets RealPage into legal trouble. If competitors want to converge on prices in a legal manner , they have to do…

I think the major differentiator here is that in the examples provided, everyone has access ( even if it is for a price ). When it comes of equifac work number or realpage data, it seems to be available to only a subset of population, which is problematic. I want to know what a given corporation is paying.

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#493

Post by analog31 »

hoosieree wrote: post #474
sithadmin wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just by algorithm. In the US, many large employers utilize 'The Work Number' by Equifax for employment verification services, and share details about individual employees as granular as individual paycheck disbursements. This information is visible to other employers that buy in to the scheme, and obviously favors the employer in salary negotiations with a candidate.

Data brokers are a scourge. They should be illegal, or at the very least regulated. For example, here's an idea for one such regulation: If the company purchases aggregated salary data, they must publish their own salaries for at least 1 year.

Possession of the data should be illegal. It can be enforced through statutory damages, similar to the damages paid for sharing copyrighted music recordings and movies.

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#494

Post by seanmcdirmid »

__loam wrote: post #435
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commie blocks don’t work, just ask China who has an even more messed up property market than we do.

We could also ask the Soviet Union which despite being an authoritarian shithole, did not have homeless people. In any case, most cities in the US have obvious supply side issues with housing. It doesn't matter who builds it, we need more supply. Why shouldn't it be the government?

Soviet Union had a residency system also so everyone didn't just move to Moscow.

Can we build enough housing in SF, Seattle, LA, SD to satisfy demand? Keep in mind that as soon as housing is affordable in these cities, even more people will move to them...so how much is enough?

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#495

Post by gunapologist99 »

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.

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#496

Post by doctorpangloss »

andrewmutz wrote: post #486
tqi wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm having a hard time understanding is why RealPage cared about "compliance" in the first place - do they charge as a % of rent? That seems nuts, I would imagine landlords hate that. If not % of rent then I can't understand why the company would want rents to be higher across the board.

I built software for this industry (not at realpage) for 10+ years and can explain why price compliance is a big deal. The reason is that there is a fundamental principal vs. agent problem in the fee-based property management industry. Usually an investor buys a building and then hires a separate corporation called a fee-based property management company to manage the property. The management company gets to keep 8-1…

Yeah, but listen brother. Do you want housing prices to be lower or higher? Do you want rents to be lower or higher? Which is best for you? What is best for the country? Your experience is really valuable in the context of what this action is meant to address, which is a potentially irreconcilable political interest in low rents for all, high prices for some, low prices for others, which could be achieved many ways.

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#497

Post by ToucanLoucan »

bogwog wrote: post #449
ang_cire wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a company is able to price a product above their competitors and still succeed (e.g. by investing more in marketing), that's legal too. Yes, but it also runs counter to the idea that free markets tend to drive prices down through competition. In reality, 1 of 2 things happens: a) companies try to differentiate their products enough to not be direct competitors (e.g. exclusive content on streaming platforms, or p…

Sorry, but that is nonsense and I have no idea what point you're trying to make. You're saying that competition doesn't drive down prices by giving two examples of how companies avoid competition.

> You're saying that competition doesn't drive down prices by giving two examples of how companies avoid competition.

The point is that the intuitive wisdom that free market competition lowers prices of goods is not now, nor has it ever been the truism that it's postured as, because the businesses within that market have a huge selection of tools and strategies at their disposal to avoid direct competition.

And this makes sense. Why in the world would you subject your business to the unmediated competition of a free market? Yeah, it's totally possible for you to create a product so innately better that you own the market by virtue of that, but that's like... hard. It's way easier to create brand-lock-in to incentivize your existing customers to stay in your "ecosystem," or to create an innovative unique feature and patent it so your competition can't use it, or use snobby/elitist marketing to make your product more enticing to people who seek status, or shit, go the other way, make it humble and down to earth, and appeal to a sense of "genuineness," or tie yourself to patriotism and put flags all over your product, whatever it might be. There's tons of ways you can make people want your thing that have fuck-all to do with the thing.

I think this is a serious fault in how pro-free-market people tend to think, which is this constant positioning of people as rational actors who will choose the best product for their needs, and it's utter nonsense. People buy stuff for stupid reasons constantly.

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#498

Post by simoncion »

leafmeal wrote: post #487
Manuel_D wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Policy restricting housing is indeed another factor impeding housing. The price controls I'm referring to are rent controls (which applies to ~70% of apartments in SF, and the threat of reintroducing rent controls looms) and affordable housing mandates. The affordable housing mandates require that a certain percentage of units are rented at set prices. Again, if housing isn't an investment opportunity, then why would…

In San Francisco, rent control doesn't apply to new construction as I understand.

Correct. With one major exception (that is, a dozen or two of the couple-hundred units in Trinity Place on Market Street) SF's rent stabilization ordinance does not apply to buildings constructed after ~1979.

So, it would be good for GP (PP? family trees are hard) to consider the implications of the fact that ~70% of the rental apartments in SF were built BEFORE 1979.

Re: DOJ sues realpage for algorithmic pricing scheme that harms renters

#499

Post by tqi »

andrewmutz wrote: post #486
tqi wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm having a hard time understanding is why RealPage cared about "compliance" in the first place - do they charge as a % of rent? That seems nuts, I would imagine landlords hate that. If not % of rent then I can't understand why the company would want rents to be higher across the board.

I built software for this industry (not at realpage) for 10+ years and can explain why price compliance is a big deal. The reason is that there is a fundamental principal vs. agent problem in the fee-based property management industry. Usually an investor buys a building and then hires a separate corporation called a fee-based property management company to manage the property. The management company gets to keep 8-1…

> the owner is the person who chooses to enforce the pricing algorithm

Very interesting - I can't find anything about this on their website, but assuming that is the case I feel like this is the only explanation so far in this thread that makes sense. Other explanations in this thread (marketing, optimizing for all the customers) fall short to me because (as far as I can tell) there is no reward / punishment mechanism.

This is not to say that the effect isn't the same though, driving prices up. And the other quotes from internal documents certainly hint that there might have been some awareness of this as well.

Post reply on HN