Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tenant Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel approves amended bill banning landlord pricing coordination but stalls on lowered antitrust standard
Summary
The committee released A3497, which would bar landlords from using coordinators or pricing algorithms to limit competition, but testimony focused on Section 5 proposing a lower antitrust pleading standard; the committee approved release with amendments after debate and mixed votes.
The Assembly Housing Committee released A3497, an amended bill that would prohibit rental-property owners from engaging in coordinated pricing through software or other "coordinator" services and direct state agencies to conduct public education about the law. The measure drew sustained testimony and a contentious debate over Section 5, which proposes a lower pleading standard for antitrust claims.
Catherine Best, speaking for the New Jersey Realtors, urged striking the antitrust language and moving penalties to the Consumer Fraud Act, warning that "lowering the standard for this legislation could put the entire real estate industry at risk, leading to a cottage industry of frivolous litigation." She said the uniform antitrust standard in New Jersey has not been lowered in more than 50 years.
Audrey Witcher of Fair Share Housing Center said algorithmic rent-setting tools can act like coordinated price-setting and disproportionately harm Black and Latino households, arguing that "these rent setting algorithms take the empathy out of rent setting." Matthew Hirsch of the Housing and Community Development Network urged sponsors to coordinate with similar Senate measures to avoid duplication.
David Brogan, Executive Director of the New Jersey Apartment Association, opposed Section 5 and said a lower industry-specific legal standard would "act as a disincentive toward development" by increasing litigation risk and costs that could ultimately push up rents.
Committee members pressed witnesses on federal and state enforcement already underway, and some members and witnesses recommended drafting tighter, bright-line definitions of prohibited algorithmic conduct so courts could apply a clearer test without creating incentives for speculative litigation. One committee member said the committee amendments aim to "be explicit about the algorithmic piece" and to clarify the conduct the legislature permits or rejects.
After extended questioning and debate, members moved to amend and release the bill. The roll call showed Assemblywoman Flynn and Assemblyman Clifton voting no; Assemblywoman Brennan, Assemblyman Moen, Vice Chair Stanley and Chair Lopez voted yes. Assemblywoman Keanu raised concerns during the roll call but ultimately recorded a yes vote with the understanding the prime sponsor would review Section 5 in light of testimony. The bill was released from committee with amendments.
