Committee sends ordinance banning algorithmic rental price coordination to full council after amendments

Portland’s Homelessness and Housing Committee on Oct. 7 voted to send an ordinance to the full City Council that would prohibit anti‑competitive rental practices, including algorithmic services that coordinate pricing among competing landlords.

The committee voted to replace the ordinance’s Exhibit A and then moved the amended ordinance to the full council with a recommendation to pass; both procedural actions passed on 3‑1 roll calls (Vice Chair Dunfee — aye; Councilor Ryan — no; Councilor Maria Murillo — aye; Councilor Avalos — aye). The vote sends Ordinance Document No. 2025‑045, as amended, to the full council; it is not final city law.

Why it matters: sponsors say the measure is intended to protect renters from coordinated pricing that raises rents and holds units off the market. Councilor Maria Murillo, who sponsored the ordinance, said she pulled the item earlier in the year to sharpen the language and bring a narrower, legally durable version back to committee. Policy adviser Susie Duister gave the committee a refresher on the issue, citing federal and state antitrust principles and studies that, she said, show algorithmic coordination can lift rents across markets. Duister told the committee: “This is something that’s been illegal for over 100 years at the federal level.”

What the ordinance would do: The draft added to the city’s affordable‑housing code would prohibit coordinated conduct among competing landlords that results in aligning or stabilizing prices. Sponsors emphasized the current draft targets coordinating behavior — the “hub‑and‑spoke” model Duister described — rather than banning particular software tools or ordinary market research. The draft also adds an affirmative defense allowing a defendant to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that they did not and reasonably could not have known they used a service that engaged in price fixing. Penalties were adjusted to align with Portland’s housing code.

Key numbers and evidence cited: Duister cited a White House analysis that she said estimated algorithmic price fixing cost tenants about $3.8 billion in 2023 and described markets with high algorithm adoption seeing higher rents and lower occupancy. She also said RealPage is a dominant market actor and that two of the three largest landlords named in Department of Justice litigation operate in Portland and together manage roughly 32,000 units, which she described as about 10% of the city’s housing stock.

Public testimony was sharply split. Tenants’ advocates urged adoption. Lauren Armani of the Welcome Home Coalition said the ordinance would give tenants a tool to challenge unfair pricing and pointed to high eviction rates and rising rents. The Community Alliance of Tenants’ executive director, Kim McCarty, said the amended draft addressed previous unintended‑consequence concerns and urged support. In contrast, Joseph Gardner, speaking for RealPage, and representatives of statewide landlord associations said the ordinance remained overbroad, could chill legitimate property management practices and would likely face legal challenges; Gardner said, “RealPage does not engage in price fixing.” Multifamily Northwest expressed concern that normal operational knowledge across portfolios—vacancy trends, lease expirations, neighborhood comparables—could be misconstrued as coordination.

Amendments and outstanding changes: Councilor Murillo previewed two amendments; one clarifies exemptions for deeply subsidized or regulated affordable housing and programs administered by public agencies (to ensure the ordinance does not apply to units regulated or subsidized by federal, state or local governments). Council President Ilana Pertelghini (as introduced at the dais) proposed language aiming to exempt truly small landlords (a carve‑out for owners of five or fewer units, with draft language intended to close a loophole that could be exploited through multiple entities). Sponsors said those amendments still require code and legal review before final votes at full council.

Enforcement and timeline: Committee members asked about proof and enforcement. City attorneys and staff said the ordinance would apply only to conduct after the ordinance’s effective date (staff indicated an effective date commonly set at 90 days after passage), and the city attorney’s office could bring administrative enforcement actions before the Code Hearings Office; private suits would remain possible under a private right of action. Committee members also discussed the burden of proof and the practicalities of obtaining the data a renter or plaintiff would need to support a claim.

Next steps: The committee’s procedural votes move the amended ordinance to full council with a recommendation to pass. Sponsors said they will continue work with the city attorney’s office and stakeholders (including Home Forward and industry groups) to refine definitions and finalize code review before full council consideration.

Ending note: The committee’s action is a recommendation; the full City Council will consider the ordinance and any further refinements before any change becomes binding city code.