Councilor Murillo introduces ordinance to ban algorithmic rental‑pricing tools; supporters urge urgent action

Councilor Murillo introduced a proposed ordinance to amend Portland’s affordable housing code to prohibit anti‑competitive rental practices, including the sale and use of algorithmic rental‑pricing software. Murillo said the measure targets corporate landlords using third‑party tools that, she said, remove competitive pricing from the rental market and contribute to rent increases.

Murillo described enforcement and remedies in the draft ordinance: a private right of action for tenants and tenant groups, a civil penalty floor (the draft provides a $10,000 statutory damages floor per lease period or treble actual damages, whichever is greater), and recovery of attorney’s fees if a plaintiff prevails. Murillo’s office told the committee it deliberately did not add a new city enforcement unit to avoid new budget costs while the city faces a large structural deficit; enforcement was described as likely to proceed through existing state or nonprofit investigatory partners (for example, BOLI or tenant‑advocacy organizations) or private litigation.

Invited testimony and public comment were overwhelmingly supportive. Tenants and tenant groups said algorithmic pricing tools—cited examples included RealPage, Yardi, and YieldStar—allow landlords to “fix” or coordinate pricing without direct communication. Yanda Allen of Community Alliance of Tenants urged the committee to act, saying these tools “have no place in Oregon” and referenced state bill SB 722 as a parallel effort. Portland Tenants United, Portland Neighbors Welcome, housing case managers and dozens of individual tenants told the committee the city should move quickly to curb software‑driven price manipulation that they said inflates rents and risks pushing residents into homelessness.

Committee members asked technical and implementation questions. Councilor Dunphy asked about the burden of proof required for a tenant to prevail; City Attorney staff said the ordinance creates a private right of action and allows the court to award damages and fees, but that evidentiary standards and investigatory practice would mirror other civil enforcement matters and could involve existing agency investigations. The City Attorney’s Office and Murillo’s staff said they would follow up with a formal implementation and impact analysis and coordinate with state and federal enforcement actions, including the U.S. Department of Justice litigation referenced in testimony.

Councilor Ryan and others pressed for data demonstrating the ordinance’s likely effect on affordability and on unintended consequences for small “mom‑and‑pop” landlords. Murillo and supporters said the ordinance targets large corporate landlords that purchase expensive software and would not materially affect small owners who set rents by neighborhood comparables. Committee members asked staff to return with more analysis—including how the ordinance would interact with state and federal law, the fiscal impact, how enforcement would operate without new city staff, and whether the damages floor should be per unit or per lease period.

The committee took no vote. Murillo said she will return with additional analysis and recommended language at a future meeting.