Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Renters topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Missoula council adopts resolution opposing anti‑competitive rental algorithms, 8‑2
Summary
On July 14, 2025, the Missoula City Council approved a resolution urging landlords to refrain from using price‑fixing algorithmic software and other anti‑competitive rental practices. The measure passed by roll call, 8–2, after Councilor Vazika requested the item be separated from the consent agenda.
Missoula City Council voted July 14 to adopt a resolution opposing anti‑competitive rental practices, including the use of price‑fixing algorithmic software, in an 8–2 roll‑call decision.
The resolution, presented as item 8.4 on the consent agenda and separated for an individual vote at the request of Councilor Vazika, says the city opposes “the use of anti competitive rental practices, including the use of…price fixing algorithmic software” and “strongly urges landlords within the city to refrain from using such practices or software.” The council approved the resolution by roll call; the tally announced at the meeting was eight in favor and two opposed.
Why it matters: council declarations against particular business practices are advisory rather than regulatory, but the resolution signals the council’s concern about automated tools that could limit competition in the local rental market and affect renters’ options and prices.
Details of the vote and action: the clerk conducted a roll‑call vote on item 8.4 after the rest of the consent agenda was dealt with by voice vote. Councilor Campbell voted no; the second opposing vote was recorded as Anne Besseka. Other council members recorded on the roll call as voting in favor included Councilor Anderson, Councilor Becerra, Councilor Armour, Councilor Jones, Councilor Jordan, Councilor Nugent and Councilor Vazika; the meeting transcript recorded the final count as eight yes, two no. The resolution text as presented urges landlords to refrain from anti‑competitive software and practices but does not create a local prohibition or enforcement mechanism.
The item originated on the consent agenda and was separated for individual consideration at Councilor Vazika’s request; no motion to amend the resolution was recorded and no subsequent referral or staff direction was announced during the meeting.
The council meeting lasted roughly 23 minutes and included multiple other consent items and a separate proclamation; no public testimony specific to the resolution was recorded during the meeting.
Ending: The resolution takes the form of a formal council declaration. The transcript gives no next administrative steps tied to the resolution (for example, referral to staff or ordinance drafting).
