Santa Ana council advances proposal to bar automated rent‑pricing algorithms
Loading...
Summary
Councilmembers debated and moved forward a proposed ordinance that would prohibit the use or sale of automated rent‑pricing algorithms by landlords in Santa Ana, citing actions in Berkeley and San Diego and recent state changes. Litigation risk and timing were central concerns; a formal vote was not recorded in the transcript.
A proposed Santa Ana ordinance that would ban the use and sale of automated rent‑pricing algorithms drew sustained discussion at the Feb. 17 City Council meeting, with supporters saying the measure would protect tenants from algorithm‑driven rent increases and skeptics warning of pending litigation.
Director Mike García told the council the ordinance would follow similar actions in other California cities and noted recent state changes that took effect Jan. 1. García described algorithms that scrape public and proprietary data to create market rent estimates and said the proposed code would “prohibit the use and sale of algorithms for landlords in the city of Santa Ana.”
Councilmember Hernández said he would move the ordinance and cited the policy purpose: to stop automated tools that can produce “unfair advantages for landlords” and drive year‑over‑year increases. Several councilmembers, including López, Becerra and Vázquez, voiced support for tenant protections and said litigation was an acceptable risk when protecting residents. Others pressed staff and the city attorney for clarity on Berkeley’s parallel litigation and for explicit legal analysis.
City staff and the city attorney told the council they had added a reference to Berkeley after the report was prepared and said staff confirmed on the morning of the meeting that Berkeley’s litigation had reached resolution on Jan. 14, 2026. Councilmembers asked for clearer documentation of that status in the staff report and for any changes staff recommends in response to Berkeley’s outcome.
The record in the transcript shows a motion to introduce the ordinance (mover: Councilmember Hernández; second: Councilmember Becerra) and robust debate about litigation risk and the ordinance’s scope; the transcript does not record a final roll‑call vote on the ordinance during the meeting.
The council directed staff to continue legal review and to return with any necessary amendments or additional information. The council emphasized the priority of tenant protections while asking staff to clarify how the draft differs from related San Diego and Berkeley ordinances.
The ordinance remains an active item for follow‑up; the report to council and any subsequent vote will determine whether the ban becomes city law.
