A proposed Justice Department judgment would stop Pinnacle from using a revenue management product whose pricing model was trained on nonpublic data other than that of the subject property owner

The restriction that reaches training data

Paragraph IV.A.1 would stop Pinnacle licensing or using, for any Defendant Property, a revenue management product with any of five characteristics. Defendant Property is a defined term: multifamily rental property Pinnacle services, expressly excluding student housing, affordable housing, age restricted or senior housing, and military housing.

Two of the five limbs are framed around Runtime Operation: using external nonpublic data other than that of the subject property's owner to generate prices, and using one property's nonpublic data to price another owner's property. Two more are not framed that way at all, and cover disclosing nonpublic data to third party managers or owners, subject to exceptions for the owner of the property the data came from and for managers servicing Pinnacle properties, and pooling nonpublic data across properties with different owners.

The fifth is different in kind. It reaches a product that "contains or uses a pricing model or algorithm that has been trained using Nonpublic Data", other than nonpublic data of the property owner of the subject property.

That is a restriction on provenance rather than on operation, and the judgment says so in its own definitions. Section II.P defines Runtime Operation as what a product does while it runs, then adds a sentence that does the work: "Runtime Operation does not mean Model Training." A product could be clean at runtime and still fall inside the fifth limb.

Why the definition of model training carries weight here

Section II.F defines model training as "the process of analyzing data, including by machine learning or regression analysis, to create or adjust the parameters of a model or algorithm to improve the accuracy of the model's or algorithm's predictions".

Regression is expressly named alongside machine learning, so a supplier cannot place a product outside the definition by observing that it does not use machine learning.

The word artificial does not appear in that definition. The test is functional: analysing data to adjust parameters to improve predictive accuracy.

The other restrictions, and the ones with their own clocks

Paragraph IV.A.2 would reach product design directly. It covers a product incorporating a rental price floor or a limit on price decrease recommendations, subject to a carve out where Pinnacle or the owner manually selects it and it is not based on the relevant nonpublic data, and a product that requires Pinnacle to accept recommended prices or gives it financial rewards for accepting them.

Paragraph IV.A.3 would bar agreeing, expressly or tacitly, with an owner or a non-defendant manager to use a particular product, or requiring anyone else to use one. It carves out property specific agreements with an owner or a co-servicing manager, provided the product complies with Paragraphs IV.A.1 and IV.A.2. Paragraph IV.B would give Pinnacle 90 days to bring a newly transferred property into line.

Paragraph IV.C carries two notification duties, not one. Within 180 days after entry Pinnacle would have to notify the United States in writing of its intention to license or use a product, 30 calendar days before using it. For any other revenue management product afterwards, at any Defendant Property, the notice would run 30 calendar days before licensing or using it. Section V adds further restrictions on disclosing and soliciting nonpublic data, and not all of Section V shares Section IV's 180 day start.

Certification, and what would actually bring in a monitor

Under Paragraph IV.E.2 the duty would sit on Pinnacle. If it elected to license or use a product from anyone other than RealPage or a RealPage reseller, it "must secure and submit to the United States a certification from the vendor" that the product complies with Paragraph IV.A or with a RealPage final judgment. The judgment would place no obligation on the vendor itself.

Section VIII.A provides that Pinnacle would not be subject to a monitor if all products it licenses or uses have been "certified pursuant to, or are otherwise compliant with, Paragraph IV.E". Certification is one route; compliance without it is another.

Section VIII.B sets two independent triggers: electing to use a product that is neither certified under nor otherwise compliant with Paragraph IV.E, or a court finding that Pinnacle "has violated any other term of the Final Judgment". Even then a monitor is not automatic. It follows "upon application of the United States, which Defendant may not oppose", with the monitor selected by the United States and approved by the court.

Update, 19 September 2026. The Antitrust Division's Tunney Act notice (15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h)) for this proposed Final Judgment appeared in the Federal Register on 18 September 2026 at 91 FR 59304 (FR Doc. 2026-19100), reproducing the amended complaint, the proposed judgment and the Competitive Impact Statement. Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of the notice; the Competitive Impact Statement adds that the period runs from Federal Register publication or from the first newspaper publication of its summary, whichever is later. Comments go in English to Danielle Hauck, Acting Chief, Technology and Digital Platforms Section, Antitrust Division, at the address the notice gives. The proposed Final Judgment, which the notice records as filed on 4 September 2026, remains proposed and not entered; the court rules on entry after the comment period under the public interest standard in 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). One qualification the judgment alone did not show: the Competitive Impact Statement states that, under the Stipulation and Order, Pinnacle has agreed to abide by and comply with the proposed judgment until the court enters it or until the time for appeals of any ruling declining entry has expired. The comment period, Federal Register date and contact that our verification note below says the judgment does not contain come from this notice, not from the judgment.

What we did not verify

What we opened: the 31 page proposed final judgment, retrieved from the Justice Department and read as extracted text, including Section II definitions, Sections IV and V, and Section VIII.

What we did not open when this piece was first published on 7 September 2026: the Stipulation and Order that Section IV keys its 180 day clock to, the Competitive Impact Statement, the underlying complaint, any RealPage final judgment the certification route refers to, the Justice Department's press release, and the Willow Bridge judgment. We therefore make no comparison between the two defendants' terms, and, apart from the filing date, the Federal Register notice date and the comment clock reported in the 19 September 2026 update above, we give no calendar date for any other step.

What we refuse to claim: we do not say the court has barred Pinnacle from anything, because the judgment is proposed and not entered; the Competitive Impact Statement reports that Pinnacle has stipulated to abide by and comply with the proposed Final Judgment until it is entered by the Court, or until the time for all appeals of any Court ruling declining entry has expired, and Paragraph IV.A's restrictions separately begin 180 days after entry of the Stipulation and Order. We do not predict whether or when the court will enter it. At first publication we stated no comment period, Federal Register date or contact for comments, because the judgment contains none of those; the 19 September 2026 update above reports them from the Federal Register notice. Where we give timing, it is Paragraph IV.A keying its restrictions to entry of the Stipulation and Order plus 180 days, and the 60-day comment window opened by the 18 September 2026 Federal Register notice; the entry date of the Stipulation and Order was not examined, so no calendar date follows from the 180-day clock. We do not describe this as a ban on rent setting algorithms. This piece summarises the provisions above and does not cover every limb of Sections IV to VII.

Quotations are reproduced with ASCII punctuation in place of the typographic apostrophes used in the filing, which is a house typesetting convention and not a change to any word.

Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.

Related briefings

• DOJ's Willow Bridge decree on RealPage algorithmic rent setting
• New Jersey bans algorithmic rent setting
• New Jersey moves on AI surveillance pricing
• North America AI regulation tracker
• AI Regulation News hub