By: Hannah Gracedel

It’s that time of year again. You come home from a long day of work to a little note taped to your apartment door. You open it, and it’s a lease renewal notice. Surprise! Your rent is going up. Again. You start browsing online for alternatives, but everything is too expensive. You wonder if this is just inflation or if something else is behind these relentless rent prices. A few internet search results later, you stumble upon the name of a company you’ve never heard of, RealPage, which is currently being accused of price fixing in the rental market. 

Who is RealPage?

RealPage is a property management software company headquartered in Richardson, Texas. Its software helps property managers and owners with marketing, applicant screening, utility management, resident services, lead generation, and, most importantly, recommendations for pricing of rental units. RealPage has been the nation’s dominant provider of such rent-setting software since 2017. 

How the rent-setting software works

RealPage’s pricing tool pulls data from its vast network of clients to recommend rent prices for individual units. The software factors in data such as supply and demand, occupancy rates, competitor pricing, etc. The software updates in real-time, providing property managers with insight they would have been unable to obtain on their own through public information. 

What is Price Fixing?

In a healthy, competitive market, prices are generally determined by supply and demand, where sellers respond to consumers’ willingness to buy goods and services. Price fixing, however, sidesteps this process. Price fixing occurs when competitors agree with each other, either formally or informally, to raise, lower, stabilize, or maintain prices at a certain level rather than letting the market set them naturally. This type of coordination among competitors eliminates the incentive to undercut rivals by offering a better deal. The effect of this is artificially higher prices for consumers. 

Normally, when we think of a price-fixing cartel, we think of shady business executives meeting in a back room, discussing their private business information, and agreeing on prices moving forward. One infamous example is the Lysine price-fixing cartel caught on camera, which was the basis for the bestselling nonfiction thriller book Informant: A True Story, and the movie adaptation Informant!, starring Matt Damon. 

However, RealPage’s situation is different and, admittedly, makes for a much less thrilling movie adaptation. What’s happening here is that the price-fixing agreement is happening virtually and among competitors who have never even spoken with each other before. By feeding private data into RealPage’s software and accepting its rent recommendations, landlords and property managers may be coordinating prices through a shared algorithm, effectively using it as an intermediary for collusion. While the method of alleged price fixing is novel, the impact on the market is just the same: higher prices and fewer meaningful options for consumers. As Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco put it, “[t]raining a machine to break the law is still breaking the law.”

Why is this such a big deal?

Currently, RealPage serves over 24 million units worldwide. This means that rent prices across millions of units are being shaped not just by local market forces, but by a centralized algorithm feeding on private data submitted from property owners and managers who are technically supposed to be competitors. When large numbers of sellers use the same system to set rents, it raises serious concerns that competition is being replaced by coordination. 

Take Seattle, for example. In Belltown, a Seattle neighborhood located between the Space Needle and Pike Place Market, 70% of the apartments were overseen by just 10 property managers, and every single one of them uses pricing software sold by RealPage. To the unsuspecting renter, this might look like a competitive market with multiple landlords, but in reality, it’s one algorithm making the rent decisions for the thousands of the units in a neighborhood. 

Pending claims against RealPage

The U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of states, including North Carolina, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, and Tennessee, have filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against RealPage. The DOJ alleges that RealPage’s pricing algorithm enabled landlords to share confidential information and align their rents, thereby violating antitrust laws.

The Washington State Attorney General’s Office filed a lawsuit in April 2025 against RealPage and nine major landlords, alleging violations of the state’s Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit claims that RealPage’s software facilitated a conspiracy among landlords to inflate rental prices, affecting approximately 800,000 leases in Washington between 2017 and 2024.

If these claims succeed, the implications could be massive, not just for RealPage but for the future of algorithmic pricing across industries.

#rent #algorithm #wjlta

By: Lindsey Vickers

What website can you consult to learn about far-flung politicians’ life histories, tiny, obscure islands, and what your cats’ body language means? Wikipedia, of course. 

The tried-and-true internet resource that crops up as the top result for a quick Google search for anything from “corn” to “Hundeprutterutchebane.” (The latter is the name of a Danish amusement park that translates to “dog fart roller coaster,” per its Wikipedia page.) Like YouTube or Google, it’s a household name these days. And, according to Wikipedia, well, Wikipedia is high on the list of most visited websites per year. 

But the popular online encyclopedia is heading into uncharted waters following an unprecedented threat and heightened scrutiny from an appointee of the current administration—making its future uncertain. 

What is Wikipedia? 

Wikipedia is a household name, even though the online giant was launched in 2001 and was initially only available in English. 

A few years later, in 2003, the Wikimedia Foundation was founded. According to its Wikipedia page, the foundation was designed specifically to oversee and fund Wikipedia and “other wiki projects,” such as Wiktionary, a dictionary, and Wikinews, an online news source. In 2005, the foundation became a government-recognized 501(c)(3) nonprofit. 

The O.G. encyclopedia that started it all has continued to expand since. It is now available in hundreds of languages. One of the encyclopedia’s unique and controversial features is its open-source editing. In essence, the encyclopedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit its pages. This has led to nefarious actors editing Wikipedia pages to include inauthentic or factually incorrect information at times. 

As such, research libraries often note that while Wikipedia is largely accurate, it is not foolproof and, therefore, is not considered a credible source. Many suggest only using Wikipedia as a general tool, and looking at a page’s sources as possible references, rather than the content itself. 

Who is attacking Wikipedia? 

Trump appointee Ed Martin, an interim U.S. attorney in D.C., is responsible for the current questions about Wikimedia’s modern practices and the future. Martin, who was appointed as a U.S. attorney in January, is charged with representing the federal government. In this case, he represents the government in Washington, D.C. He is one of 93 such attorneys, each of whom is appointed to represent a federal district. 

As the attorney for D.C., Martin has more power than many of those in other federal districts across the country. This is because he works in D.C., where Martin’s duties range from prosecuting white-collar crimes by government employees and going after operatives who obstruct congressional investigations. Apparently, he recently added monitoring Wikipedia to this list. 

Why is Wikipedia under legal scrutiny?

According to a letter sent to Wikipedia by Martin, Wikipedia is a dangerous online platform that publishes “propaganda.” The letter was first obtained by The Free Press, a small journalism outlet founded by a New York Times Reporter that publishes news, including stories related to the free press. 

The letter states that Wikipedia may be operating in a way that violates its “obligations” as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit by allowing “foreign actors” to “manipulate information” and spread that propaganda to the American public. (This goes back to the whole “open source” encyclopedia idea.) 

What happens next?

Wikimedia, the nonprofit organization that Wikipedia falls under, was given until May 15th to respond to the letter. Martin requests that Wikimedia provide an array of information on how the foundation reviews revisions and represents a broad spectrum of views, how Wikimedia addresses allegations of contributors misleading readers, and its policies surrounding hateful content. 

This isn’t the first time Trump appointees have taken steps to limit information circulation, especially at outlets and entities that the administration dislikes. The Associated Press, for example, was also targeted. The White House rescinded its access to certain press events after the organization refused to call the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” in its reporting. A judge later ruled the move was unconstitutional, though it is unclear how the White House has responded to the ruling. 

But, for now, what does the future of Wikipedia hold? As any good lawyer will tell you: It depends. It depends on whether and how the foundation complies with Martin’s letter, whether the interaction spurs legal action, and, if it does, how the chips fall in court. The encyclopedia recently announced an AI-assisted program to aid its human editors in reviewing information. This could increase the editorial staff’s oversight of content. 

For the time being, the most expansive online encyclopedia is still kicking it. And I know because I’ve used its sources throughout this entire article to show just how expansive it is. (After I cross-referenced the information with other reputable sites, of course.) 

#wikipedia #wikimedia #contentmoderation

By William Kronblat

Warner Bros. is set to release the highly anticipated Superman movie starring David Corenswet, Rachel Brosnahan, and Nicholas Hoult in July. Fans are eager to see James Gunn’s interpretation of the iconic character and superhero universe. In 2022, Gunn was appointed co-chair and co-CEO of Warner Bros. new superhero movie studio, DC studios. DC studios replaced DC films after years of executive turmoil. The upcoming Superman film is meant to jumpstart the rebooted DC Comics movie universe under Gunn’s stewardship. 

However, not everyone shares the fans’ enthusiasm. In January of 2025, a copyright lawsuit aimed to block the release of the film in several countries. The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court in the Southern District of New York, as copyright is governed by federal law. But the lawsuit’s intended impact is broader: it seeks to cancel Warner Bros. “Superman” copyrights in 10 countries including Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom by asking the court to apply the law of those nations. 

The Lawsuit:

The lawsuit was brought by Mark Warren Peary, the nephew of the late Superman co-creator Joe Schuster and executor of Schuster’s estate. Peary argued that under the copyright laws of those 10 countries, Warner Bros. had lost its right to the Superman copyright. Peary sought compensation from all the works connected to the alleged infringement, including older Warner Bros. titles like Zack Synder’s Justice League, Black Adam, and Shazam. Peary contended that the court had to apply the laws of the countries where the alleged infringement occurred, and that his claims could proceed under the Berne Convention (an international treaty that sets out minimum standards for copyright protection that the U.S. has adopted in part).

Peary’s suit was dismissed this month by U.S. District Court Judge Jesse Furman. Judge Furman held that the court did not have jurisdiction over the dispute and no authority to address the estate’s copyright interest under foreign laws. Peary sought to establish jurisdiction by having the court employ diversity jurisdiction or federal-question jurisdiction, but Judge Furman held that neither applied. 

Diversity jurisdiction was not present because there were parties from California on both sides of the lawsuit. Diversity jurisdiction cannot occur when even one plaintiff is a citizen of the same state that a defendant is a citizen of. Moreover, federal-question jurisdiction was not present because Peary’s complaint did not raise a federal issue, and his “infringement claims [were] brought explicitly under the laws of foreign countries.” Additionally, given the lack of jurisdiction, Furman did not address the merits of Peary’s claims.

Peary and his attorney, powerhouse copyright lawyer Marc Toberoff, did not publicly respond to comment on Judge Furman’s decision, but they promptly refiled the lawsuit in New York state court. Spokesmen for  Warner Bros. and DC Comics expressed their satisfaction with the decision and reiterated that “DC controls all rights to Superman.”

How did DC acquire ownership of the Superman copyright?

In 1938, Superman creators Jerome Siegel and Joe Schuster sold their rights to the character and story to DC Comics for only $130 ($2,948.50 in today’s market). Superman then appeared under the DC Comics banner in Action Comics No. 1. Since then, the Superman copyright has been a hot button topic for litigation. For instance, in 1947 Siegel and Schuster sued DC to invalidate their ownership rights of Superman. The case ultimately settled with Siegel and Schuster receiving $94,000, which equates to about $1,300,053.72 in today’s economy.

DC still retains control of the Superman copyright despite provisions of U.S copyright law allowing original copyright holders to reclaim domestic rights over their copyright after a certain period of time. This is because Mark Peary’s siblings reached a deal with DC in 1992 that terminated the right in exchange for $25,000 per year.

Warner Bros. owns DC, and as a result has access to the DC intellectual property portfolio which includes copyrights such as Superman. 

What is the  future of the Superman copyright?

Despite Peary’s efforts to refile the suit in state court, it is doubtful that any outcome will impede Warner Bros. and DC’s ability to release Superman this summer. The Superman copyright has been litigated time and time again, but the courts have affirmed Warner Bros. ownership repeatedly. Warner Bros. contractually secured its ability to control the Superman copyright with Schuster’s estate back in 1992. Even with the help of a reputable copyright lawyer, Mark Peary is facing an uphill (maybe even impossible) battle if he wants to get Warner Bros. ownership revoked, in the U.S. or any other country. 

It is noteworthy that the Superman copyright expires in 2034. When the copyright expires it will go into the public domain and everyone will have the ability to use the Superman copyright including Mark Peary. It is also noteworthy that DC has been prepping for the moment their copyrights enter public domain. DC has implemented various strategies to protect their copyrights even when they enter the public domain including creating new versions of the character and maintaining high levels of quality control. Given the implementation of these strategies, and that 2034 is still 9 years away, there is still plenty of time for more litigation of the Superman copyright. 

#WJLTA #Superman #copyright #litigation