Senate committee hears bill to ban price‑fixing algorithms, citing rental market impact

Senator Blessing and joint sponsor Senator Blackshear presented sponsor testimony to the Senate Financial Institutions, Insurance and Technology Committee on Senate Bill 79, legislation that would amend Ohio's Valentine Act to clarify that price fixing carried out by algorithms trained on nonpublic data constitutes unlawful price fixing.

Blessing told the committee the bill "bans the use of price fixing algorithms" and would add oversight to the use of such tools. He said price fixing using nonpublic competitor data is effectively collusion even when it occurs through software rather than direct agreements among businesses.

During testimony, sponsors cited research and industry examples. A White House report released in December was cited as finding that pricing algorithms can add an average of $70 per month to the cost of rent and that some metropolitan areas show high concentrations of landlords using the same rental‑pricing software. Senator Blackshear described RealPage — a software company that uses proprietary rental data and algorithms — as an example of technology that can enable landlords to coordinate pricing indirectly.

Sponsors explained how the bill would work: it would amend the Valentine Act (Ohio's state antitrust statute) to make clear that an algorithm trained on nonpublic data that sets or recommends prices can constitute price fixing; violations would remain subject to the Valentine Act's enforcement mechanisms, including criminal penalties and civil damages, and enforcement could be pursued by the attorney general, county prosecutors, or private plaintiffs.

Committee members asked technical and enforcement questions. One member raised concerns that the bill's definition of "pricing algorithm" could be too narrow or easy to evade if it only covers processes that "recommend or set a price." Sponsors replied that the statutory focus on algorithms trained on nonpublic data is deliberate; if pricing decisions relied only on public data, the bill would not apply. Sponsors also described a provision that treats a software distributor as exposed to liability if it sells or licenses pricing software to "two or more" persons who use it to set or recommend prices; individual users may assert a defense if they did not reasonably know the software relied on nonpublic competitor data.

No committee vote was recorded; the hearing for Senate Bill 79 concluded after sponsor testimony and committee questions.

This was the first committee hearing for Senate Bill 79 before the Financial Institutions, Insurance and Technology Committee.