Providence committee advances ordinance to ban algorithmic rent‑setting software

The Providence City Special Committee on Health Opportunity for Expanding and Education (HOPE) voted on April 23 to advance an ordinance that would prohibit the use of algorithmic rent‑setting devices — such as RealPage’s YieldStar — for residential dwelling units in Providence. The motion to pass the ordinance as amended was made by Councilwoman Cindy Peterson and seconded by Councilor Miguel Sanchez; the committee voted to advance the measure.

Committee sponsors and city staff said the ordinance seeks to close a perceived “loophole” whereby property managers share rent and occupancy data with third‑party pricing algorithms that, the presenters said, can recommend rent levels across a market. "Rent‑setting software algorithms ... exist for one singular reason: to boost profits by artificially increasing rents," said Jim Rose, chief of staff for the City Council, during the presentation. City staff described the proposal as adding language to Chapter 13 of the Providence municipal code to prohibit use of algorithmic devices that set or raise rents.

The measure and staff presentation cited national debate and legal action against pricing platforms. The presentation referenced a widely used product, YieldStar, and material saying it can help owners "outperform the market by 3 to 7%." Staff also noted federal antitrust attention and lawsuits involving large property managers; the ordinance would authorize the city solicitor to accept reports of alleged violations and, at the solicitor’s discretion, forward matters to the Rhode Island attorney general or bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Attorney Jeff Pavlov, who said he has been retained to represent RealPage, urged the committee to narrow the ordinance’s scope and raised constitutional concerns. "The high rents are due to supply and demand, not pricing algorithms," Pavlov said, and argued that the ordinance as drafted could raise First Amendment issues if it prohibits use of publicly available information. Pavlov said he circulated an amendment limiting the ban to recent, non‑public information (he suggested 90 days) and requested a 60‑day effective date if the ordinance passes to allow companies time to comply.

City staff and council members discussed enforcement and litigation risk. Staff said the ordinance retains a role for the solicitor to decide whether to pursue matters and that the city could seek the maximum penalty allowed under state law, which staff characterized as $500 per day per violation. Staff and the council acknowledged the ordinance has not been fully litigated elsewhere and that parts of the implementation process — including which court would hear a challenge and the solicitor’s staffing to pursue litigation — still require internal planning with the law department.

City staff reported an initial check of RealPage’s public tools that returned roughly 26 Providence properties that appear in RealPage search results; staff named properties cited in that check, including Beneficent House, Center Place, the Nightingale and Four Seasons, and said those listings tend to be larger buildings with many units. Committee members asked staff to provide a ward‑level breakdown and deeper analysis of which landlords are using the service.

Council members voiced support for the ordinance as a tool to protect renters and address affordability. Several members compared the technology to a form of price fixing that can operate without direct collusion among landlords. Others urged caution, asking staff and the law department to refine the ordinance’s enforcement language and confirm the solicitor’s capacity to litigate if necessary. Council members also discussed the city budget process in relation to possible solicitor staffing to support enforcement.

The committee advanced the ordinance as amended; the sponsor and staff said the item will go to the full council, where additional amendments or floor motions are possible. Presenters and the solicitor’s office said they are prepared to defend the ordinance if challenged, and staff said they will provide further details on enforcement procedures and the list of properties identified during initial research.