The District of Columbia Attorney General has announced settlements with JBG Associates, L.L.C. and Mid-America Apartments, L.P. in its RealPage rent-pricing suit, under two party-signed proposed consent judgments that would restrict revenue-management software for ten and eight years from court entry, an entry the posted copies do not show

What the release says, and what it leaves out

The OAG release of 14 September 2026 states that Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb announced that JBG Associates, L.L.C. (JBG Smith) and Mid-America Apartments (MAA) will pay a total of $9.3 million and change their business practices under separate settlement agreements resolving the office's antitrust lawsuit. The release describes the suit as alleging that the companies illegally conspired with other landlords, using RealPage, Inc.'s pricing software, to inflate rents at thousands of apartments across the District. It gives JBG Smith over 4,500 units in DC and MAA 269 units. These are the release's figures and the release's characterisation; the settlements themselves admit nothing, as set out below.

The release breaks the money down as $8.1 million from JBG Smith and $1.2 million from MAA, and describes the total as civil penalties, money to impacted residents, and legal fees. It lists three practice changes: reform rent-setting practices to prohibit revenue management software that relies on any non-public or confidential data from other companies; refrain from encouraging others to use such software or to accept recommended prices, and from promoting it to other owners; and stop sharing non-public information with other landlords or property managers. It adds that OAG may appoint an Independent Monitor at the company's expense if it learns of possible non-compliance. It also records that OAG previously announced settlements in the same lawsuit with W.C. Smith, Avenue5 and Bell Partners.

Two things are absent from the release. It does not give the case number, and it does not say whether the Superior Court has entered either agreement. Both documents it links to answer the first question and leave the second open.

Party-signed, and not shown entered

Each linked PDF is captioned in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division, District of Columbia v. RealPage, Inc., et al., Case No. 2023-CAB-006762, before Judge Shana Frost Matini, and is titled Consent Judgment and Order. Each opens by reciting that it comes before the Court on the joint motion of the District and the settling defendant under SCR-Civ. 68-I for entry of the order. The settling MAA entity is Mid-America Apartments, L.P., referred to in its document as MAALP.

Paragraph 25 of the JBG document and paragraph 30 of the MAALP document are identical: the order constitutes a binding, enforceable agreement as to its terms when executed and then entered by the Court. Paragraph 31 (JBG) and paragraph 37 (MAALP) provide that if the Court does not enter the order, the parties return to the status quo ante. The District's signature page in each posted copy (JBG page 18, MAALP page 24) is an image-only page carrying a handwritten signature over Attorney General Schwalb's name block, and the final page (JBG page 19, MAALP page 25) carries defense counsel's handwritten signature above the words IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, followed by blank lines for the date and for Hon. Shana Frost Matini. We rendered all four pages and the judicial lines are empty.

The file-level evidence is mixed and we report it rather than resolve it. Both PDFs carry the internal title RealPage - [JBG or MAA] Consent Order 9.10.2026 EXECUTED.pdf, which points to a 10 September document version. The PDF metadata records creation on 14 September 2026, the day of the release. Neither fact is a court entry date. We did not query the Superior Court docket. The posted copies do not show entry, but they also cannot prove that no entered order exists on the docket. Until a docket entry or a stamped copy settles that, we cannot determine whether the obligations described in this piece are in force or whether any of their clocks have started.

The software terms, with the exceptions the release omits

Under the JBG document, once entered, paragraph 19 would bind JBG for ten years from entry; under the MAALP document, paragraph 19 would bind the MAALP Covered Parties for eight years from entry. Paragraph 19(b) of each lists eight features of a software product or its provider that would put the software off limits: the company would not knowingly license or use it, or encourage, incentivise or require anyone else to, anywhere in the District. The eight: (i) limits on the user's ability to adjust parameters or choose overrides such that an initial or final recommended price cannot fall below a measure of fair market price; (ii) limits or penalties on parameters or overrides that would otherwise cap or eliminate recommended increases; (iii) rewarding or requiring acceptance of a default recommended price, as a final price, that is never lower than the existing price; (iv) encouraging, incentivising, rewarding or requiring acceptance of all recommended prices, or of recommended prices with any particular frequency; (v) a required justification, reasoning or explanation (MAALP's version adds feedback) for rejecting a recommendation; (vi) a requirement to choose certain parameter settings or a certain override amount; (vii) an auto-accept feature that does not require the user to set parameters individually, including a maximum increase or decrease; and (viii) a guardrail on changes from the prior day's price that lacks symmetrical upper and lower bounds set by a user-adjustable percentage, or that causes recommendations to exceed a pricing ceiling more often than they go below a pricing floor. The paragraph adds that a user interface which makes batch acceptance materially easier than batch rejection can count.

Paragraph 19(c) is the provision the release compresses into one sentence. In each document, once entered, the company would not knowingly license or use revenue management software in the District that uses or was trained with anything other than Public Information obtained from anyone other than the company to recommend its lease prices, that can disclose to it the prices recommended to another owner or manager, or that can disclose to it non-Public Information about buildings it does not own or manage. Public Information is a defined term in paragraph 7: information readily and broadly accessible to the public such as advertised asking prices, concessions, amenities and availability, plus non-public unit-level information given to a person who reasonably presents as a prospective renter. It expressly excludes internal rent pricing and executed rents, occupancy rates, application and tour counts, executed lease terms, and anything obtainable only by aggregating or disaggregating non-public data.

The two documents then part ways. JBG's paragraph 19(c)(i) ends with the words unless such historical or backward-looking data is at least 12 months old and not from active leases, an exception MAALP's document does not contain. MAALP's document instead adds a proviso that Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. and MAALP may continue making bona fide public-company disclosures of historical aggregated market-level data, such as average effective rent per unit or occupancy, in SEC filings, earnings releases, investor presentations or earnings calls, provided they reveal no property-specific or unit-level non-Public Information; information disclosed that way becomes Public Information.

Paragraph 19(d) of each document is the outbound-data clause. Once entered, it would bar the company from knowingly licensing or using software in the District that directly or indirectly transmits or makes available its own non-Public Information for use by another manager or owner of multifamily apartments, including but not limited to training algorithms or generating lease prices, or that discloses its non-Public Information, including the prices recommended to it, to another manager or owner (JBG 19(d)(i) and (ii), page 8; MAALP 19(d)(i) and (ii), page 9, each excepting another MAALP Covered Party). JBG's 19(d)(iii) adds software that uses as an input non-Public Information provided by another manager or owner. Neither document bans RealPage. JBG's paragraph 19(d) goes on to state that JBG may use RealPage revenue management software in the District if operated consistently with the RealPage DOJ consent decree and any future consent agreement with or other judgment against RealPage in the DC action, and may use other software if operated consistently with the order. MAALP's paragraph 19(e) states that the MAALP Covered Parties may use RealPage's LRO software in the District if operated consistently with the federal decree and any future consent agreement with or other judgment against RealPage in the DC action, provided the software relies solely on inputs from their own data and Public Information provided by third parties, and would require MAALP to obtain RealPage's written assent within 30 days of entry that LRO complies with the federal decree. Both footnotes cite United States v. RealPage, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00710-WLO-JLW (M.D.N.C.): JBG's to a Proposed Final Judgment at ECF No. 159-1, MAALP's to a Final Judgment at ECF No. 194-1. For any other vendor, paragraph 19(e) (JBG) and 19(f) (MAALP) would require the software provider's written assent that its product will not prevent compliance with sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d).

Promotion, information sharing and meetings

Paragraph 19(a) of each document, once entered, would bar the company from promoting revenue management software, or any particular such software, among other owners or managers of multifamily apartments in the District, with promote defined to include distributing, advertising, endorsing, encouraging or issuing statements in support. JBG's version states that the prohibition does not prevent JBG from promoting permitted software to its own current or prospective clients. MAALP's version states that it does not prohibit factual public statements describing the MAALP Covered Parties' operations, including statements that reference their use of a particular software.

Paragraph 19(f) (JBG) and 19(g) (MAALP) would bar communicating to or soliciting from another owner or manager any information about multifamily apartments other than Public Information, across phone calls, email listservs, shared documents, surveys, forms, third-party intermediaries and online forums, and would require a written employee policy to the same effect. The policy would go to the District within 30 days of the effective date. If the District does not object within 30 days of receipt, the company would institute the policy within 14 days after that; if the District objects, the company would resolve the objections before implementing it, to the District's satisfaction (JBG) or reasonable satisfaction (MAALP). Each document excepts communications in connection with a genuine effort to buy or sell apartment buildings and communications necessary to address a public health or safety incident. MAALP's adds exceptions for bona fide public-company disclosures through investor channels and for property tours where no non-Public Information changes hands.

Paragraph 19(g) (JBG) and 19(h) (MAALP) address meetings with other owners or managers that relate to residential leasing or revenue management in the District, including trade association meetings. JBG's version would permit attendance only if antitrust counsel is present, or an antitrust policy is read at the start and recorded in the minutes with no privilege asserted against the District, or the attending employee signs a statement of antitrust compliance within one week of the meeting. MAALP's version would require two things together: the topics discussed comply with paragraph 19, and one of the same three safeguards is met, except that its signature alternative is a statement the employee first signs within one week in advance of the meeting. JBG's version does not apply to meetings hosted by a government entity, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the District of Columbia Chamber of Commerce; MAALP's applies only while a Covered Party owns or manages District property and gives an employee who discovers mid-meeting that the rule applies the choice of leaving at once or signing a compliance statement within 15 days.

Money, monitoring, denials and two different clocks

The payments are to the District. JBG's paragraph 22 provides for $8,100,000 within 30 days of entry or 30 days after the District provides a W-9 and wire instructions, whichever is later. MAALP's paragraph 26 provides for $1,200,000 within 30 days after the later of entry or MAALP's receipt of complete wire instructions and any information reasonably necessary to process the payment. Paragraph 23 (JBG) and 27 (MAALP) allow the District to use the money for any lawful purpose, listing the litigation support fund, a restitution fund, costs of the action and costs of administration or distribution, at the Attorney General's sole discretion, and describe the payment as non-reversionary. MAALP's paragraph 28 states that nothing in the order creates any right in any third party to any portion of the payment. The release's phrase money to impacted residents is therefore the release's description of an intended use, not a term of either document, and neither document states that any money has been paid.

The durations differ, and JBG's document uses two. JBG's paragraph 19 sets the injunctive term at 10 years from entry, while paragraph 20, which would require notice and an Initial Report if JBG resumes RealPage or starts other revenue management software, is framed around the eight-year period following entry. JBG's paragraph 19(h) records that JBG represents it has ceased using RealPage's software in the District. MAALP's paragraph 19 runs eight years from entry, and paragraph 19(i) states that unless the software can and will be used in compliance with the order, the Covered Parties would cease using RealPage's software for District properties no later than 30 days after entry.

The monitor mechanisms are not the same either. JBG's paragraph 21 would let the District, at its sole discretion, appoint an Independent Monitor within 90 days of notice if the parties are unable to resolve the District's concerns through the paragraph 20 process of written concern and meet-and-confer, at JBG's reasonable cost. MAALP's paragraphs 23 to 25 set a longer path, available only while a Covered Party owns or manages District property. The District first raises concerns about a report under paragraph 23, with a face-to-face meeting and, failing that, document requests and interviews. If that does not resolve matters and the District has a reasonable, good faith basis to believe a material breach has occurred, it gives written notice identifying the breach, and MAALP has 14 days to file an emergency motion asking the Court to find that basis lacking. A timely motion holds the appointment in abeyance pending the Court's ruling, and if the Court finds the basis lacking the District may not appoint a monitor on those asserted breaches. A monitor may be appointed within 60 days of MAALP's failure to file a timely motion or of a ruling in the District's favour. Both documents record that the defendant denies the allegations and denies violating any law (paragraph 13 in each), and both provide that nothing in the order is an admission of liability or evidence of wrongdoing (JBG paragraph 26; MAALP paragraph 31). The release's statement that the companies illegally colluded is an allegation the settlements do not adjudicate.

What we did not verify

What we opened: the OAG release as saved on 18 September 2026, read in the raw HTML including the dateline element and the two PDF links; both linked PDFs, downloaded on 18 September 2026 with SHA-256 hashes matching the desk's earlier retrieval (JBG f0e24a5f..., 19 pages; MAALP ae173e3a..., 25 pages), text-extracted and read end to end, with the final signature pages rendered and inspected.

What we did not open: the D.C. Superior Court docket for case 2023-CAB-006762, so we cannot say whether either order has been entered, or when; the First Amended Complaint of 8 January 2025 or the pending motion for a Second Amended Complaint that MAALP's paragraph 4 mentions; the earlier W.C. Smith, Avenue5 and Bell Partners settlements the release refers to; the federal RealPage judgments at ECF 159-1 and 194-1 that the two footnotes cite; and the excluded fees case, District of Columbia v. Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc., No. 2026-CAB-002747, named in MAALP's paragraph 8. Our attempt to establish entry from the posted copies is an attested negative: the judicial signature and date lines are blank, and the file titles and metadata give a 10 September version label and a 14 September creation stamp, neither of which is an entry date.

What we refuse to claim: we do not say either judgment became binding or effective on 14 September 2026, because each says it binds only when executed and entered, and entry is not shown. We do not say $9.3 million has been paid, or that residents will receive any of it, because both documents make payment conditional on entry, give the District discretion over use, and MAALP's states that no third party acquires a right to it. We do not say these documents ban RealPage or all algorithmic rent software, because both expressly permit RealPage software operated consistently with the federal decree. We do not say the two agreements impose the same remedy, because the durations, monitor triggers and exceptions differ. We do not say they extend the DOJ Willow Bridge or Pinnacle decrees, because the documents reference only the federal RealPage judgment as a compliance benchmark and not those decrees. We do not say any collusion was admitted or adjudicated, because each defendant denies it and each order says it is not evidence of liability. We do not say the settlements bind any landlord other than the two signatories and the entities each document covers. Where the word will appears above inside the documents' terms, it is their drafting; every such term is contingent on entry.

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

Related briefings

• DOJ consent decree with Willow Bridge on RealPage algorithmic rent-setting
• DOJ proposed final judgment with Pinnacle on RealPage rent algorithms
• North America AI regulation tracker
• Weekly enforcement roundup
• AI Regulation News hub