Assembly committee advances bill to bar use of third‑party rent‑setting tools that coordinate prices

The Assembly Housing Committee on Monday voted to release Assembly Bill A4872 as amended, a measure the sponsor says would block landlords and third‑party platforms from facilitating marketwide rent coordination.

Sponsor and committee leaders framed the bill as a response to federal and investigative attention to algorithmic rent‑setting. "Housing affordability remains a pressing concern," the sponsor said, arguing the legislation is necessary to prohibit schemes that reduce competition in local rental markets.

Supporters told the committee that third‑party rent‑setting platforms can synthesize private and public data to produce price recommendations adopted across markets. "Participants in rental housing markets are having a third party synthesize data and recommend rents in order to set common pricing across a market," said Pat Garofalo of the American Economic Liberties Project. Garofalo and others cited complaints and investigations alleging many landlords adopt recommended rents and that the systems can produce marketwide effects.

Kevin Weller, a Jersey City resident and named plaintiff in an ongoing antitrust class action, said his case illustrated how algorithmic pricing and inconsistent local enforcement of rent control can combine to push rents beyond legal limits. "This isn't merely about regulating bad actor landlords, it's about protecting New Jersey residents and workers," he said.

Industry witnesses including a RealPage representative, New Jersey Realtors and builders opposed parts of the bill. Mike Semco of RealPage said some allegations in testimony — including claims about a 90% acceptance rate for recommended rents — are "patently, categorically false" and said his company will defend itself in court. Realtors and builders warned the draft could sweep in ordinary market research and urged clearer exemptions for brokers and seasonal rentals.

Committee members pressed witnesses on mechanics and real‑world effects: whether vacancies would discipline prices, how proprietary data differs from public market research, and whether the bill would hold algorithm users responsible for how proprietary software functions. Supporters said the central legal concern is facilitation of marketwide pricing through a common coordinator, not ordinary competitive research.

The version released clarifies certain terms, provides narrow exemptions (including when one owner controls multiple properties), and directs the Department of Law and Public Safety and Department of Community Affairs to develop a public education program. A motion to release the bill passed on a roll call where recorded votes included four yes votes and two no votes.