House committee advances substitute to bar landlords from using AI to set rents

A House Judiciary Committee substitute for House Bill 215, a bill that would restrict landlords’ use of artificial-intelligence pricing tools, was advanced out of committee after prolonged debate and mixed public testimony.

Sponsor Representative Romero, the bill’s primary proponent, said the measure responds to a new industry practice in which software packages draw on market data and produce “maximum price” recommendations that she and supporters say can be used to manipulate neighborhood pricing. “What AI is doing in this regard … is essentially manipulating that whole process,” Romero said, describing tools that can “pop out in real time what that would cost” and enable fast, frequent price changes.

The bill’s committee substitute narrows and refines the original language, its sponsor said, by clarifying jurisdictional scope and adding a definition of “coordinator” to target third‑party pricing services rather than ordinary research by individual owners. Romero told the committee the substitute “was just flagged as to where the jurisdiction would need to be for these types of case” and that the draft also added the definition advocated by stakeholders.

Opponents, including apartment‑industry representatives and the vendor RealPage, told the committee they support the bill’s policy aim but urged narrower language. Alan Lisak, executive director of the Apartment Association, said the bill as drafted “is way too broad” and could ban collection of public or historical data. Richard Gay, representing RealPage, said the company understands the policy concern but also raised a similar point about language breadth and noted ongoing federal litigation against the vendor.

Legal practitioners also suggested the proposal could improperly expand the jurisdiction of magistrate or metropolitan courts by embedding the cause of action in the Uniform Owner‑Resident Relations Act. Attorney Gene Vance said the draft “goes quite a bit beyond” the practice of third‑party collusion by restricting owners’ ability even to collect public information for their own pricing decisions.

Supporters included housing advocates and tenant‑assistance organizations. Wynter Torres of New Mexico Eviction Prevention and Diversion tied the issue to rising rents, citing a Pew Research Center statistic referenced by Romero and warning higher prices increase homelessness and housing instability. The New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty told the committee that shared pricing algorithms “automatically hike rents and discourage discounts” and urged passage of the substitute.

Committee members pressed for technical clarifications during a long round of questions. Some members said they supported the goals but remained concerned that the substitute could unintentionally prohibit ordinary landlord research, while others sought examples from states that have enacted similar measures. Romero said the draft was modeled on laws in Virginia, New Jersey and Washington and reflected language used elsewhere meant to confine the ban to third‑party AI coordinators.

After debate the committee advanced the committee substitute and recorded a committee recommendation (do not pass on the original bill; do pass on the Judiciary committee substitute). No criminal penalties were added in committee; the draft frames the measure as a civil cause of action tied to landlord‑tenant law and antitrust concerns.