Council hears hours of testimony on ban targeting algorithmic rent price‑setting; oral record continued

Portland City Council heard extensive committee and public testimony on an ordinance that would prohibit sale, purchase or use of software and services that analyze or compile competitively sensitive information to recommend or set residential rental prices, fees, occupancy levels or lease terms.

The ordinance, sponsored by Councilor Carmen Murillo, would also make it unlawful for a landlord or agent to share competitively sensitive information for use in price‑setting tools, create a private right of action for aggrieved tenants and allow civil penalties and injunctive relief. Committee staff said the text was updated after an initial committee hearing to clarify definitions and enforcement mechanics; the version before council included an earlier committee amendment.

Council staff and the city attorney’s office walked through the ordinance’s definitions and enforcement mechanisms during the hearing. City attorneys said the text was drafted to align with language used in pending federal consent‑judgment materials in related litigation and to reflect long‑standing antitrust principles (Sherman Antitrust Act). The ordinance includes a definition of “competitively sensitive information” and an enforcement mechanism that would allow the city to subpoena records in certain investigations; penalties and a five‑year statute of limitations are specified. City staff said ordinary uses of public market data — for example, a landlord checking posted listings or using internal rent history — were not intended to be the target, but opponents raised concerns the language as written could sweep in common practices if not clarified.

Why it matters: The ordinance responds to national investigations and lawsuits alleging that software providers and large multifamily managers used data and algorithms to coordinate rents. Supporters said local legislation is necessary because antitrust enforcement at the federal level is slow and resource‑intensive; critics warned the local rule could chill small landlords’ operations, spawn litigation and deter investment in new housing.

Who testified: Expert witnesses and economists joined landlords, property managers and tenant advocates. Supporters included economists and antitrust advocates who said algorithms can facilitate collusive outcomes and raise rents; they cited national litigation and studies. Opponents included property management trade groups and local landlords who argued the definitions are vague, the penalties are severe and the ordinance could criminalize use of routine, public data or landlords’ internal records.

Council response and next steps: Councilors asked technical questions about the definition of “competitively sensitive information,” private rights of action, whether public data would be excluded and how enforcement calculations (penalties per month per tenant) would be applied. City attorneys indicated the text can be clarified; they said agency law and existing antitrust rules allow legitimate sharing with agents (lawyers, lenders) but cautioned that collusion remains illegal regardless of medium. After approximately 26 speakers and detailed legal discussion, the council closed the in‑person testimony for the day and recessed the hearing, scheduling continuation times: a partly public session tomorrow 03:30–05:00 PM (to allow additional oral testimony) and an evening meeting on April 16 for further testimony and deliberation.

What the council did not do: Council did not vote on the ordinance. The sponsor and chair said they wanted more time to hear more public testimony and to allow staff to address drafting clarifications raised by stakeholders. The oral record remains open for written comments.

Quotable: Councilor Murillo said the proposal is “a very common‑sense law … that reaffirms over a hundred years of antitrust laws under the Sherman Antitrust Act and simply closes the loophole for our advancing technology.” Economist Brian Kalachi (Open Markets Institute) told council that the “empirical evidence … strongly suggests that the algorithms currently in use in housing markets do, in fact, drive rents higher.”

Status: The council left the matter open for additional public testimony and continued consideration; no vote was taken.