Committee backs bill to block algorithmic rent manipulation; industry warns draft is too broad

The House Commerce & Economic Development Committee voted 6‑4 to give House Bill 215 a do‑pass recommendation after testimony that automated pricing tools used by some landlords and listing services can lead to coordinated rent increases that worsen an already tight housing market.

Sponsor Representative (name in transcript) said the bill targets manipulative software and algorithms used to aggregate listing and price data and then steer landlords toward synchronized rent increases. "This is happening in our communities now," the sponsor said, citing national enforcement actions and litigation involving a company named in testimony.

Tenant advocates and housing groups urged passage. Wynter Torres, founder and CEO of New Mexico Eviction Prevention & Diversion, told the committee she has seen day‑to‑day rent changes and said landlords using such tools have pressured local rents higher; she said nationwide the Department of Justice has filed suits in multiple states. Maria Griego of New Mexico Center on Law & Poverty and other advocates said the tools can automatically raise rents and discourage discounts, disproportionately harming low‑income renters.

Small landlords also testified in favor, describing pressure from corporate buyers who raise rents after acquisition. "I receive phone calls on the regular begging me to sell my properties, and I know what they'll do is raise the rents and make all of my people on the street," testified Barbara Grothez, a long‑time Albuquerque landlord.

Industry witnesses including a registered representative for RealPage and the Apartment Association said the bill as drafted is overly broad and risks capturing legitimate data collection and ordinary market research. Richard Gay, testifying for RealPage, said the company did not oppose the bill's intent but wanted to work with the sponsor to narrow definitions. Apartment industry representatives said automated price tools are used across numerous sectors (airlines, ride‑hail) and that the bill could unintentionally prohibit standard pricing analysis.

Committee members asked about enforcement and proof standards: Representative Matthews warned that the bill relies primarily on civil suits by injured parties and that renters who cannot afford legal action may struggle to enforce the statute. Sponsor and supporters said the bill is intended to create a private cause of action under the state owner‑resident relations framework so affected renters can seek relief; supporters said antitrust enforcement by federal prosecutors also applies.

The committee passed the bill 6‑4; members on both sides asked the sponsor to work with industry and legal stakeholders to refine definitions and remedies before further action on the House floor.