--- title: "RealPage’s challenges to rental-software restrictions" language: en canonical: https://osint.v3rta.com/dossiers/realpage/software-ban-challenges/ as_of: 2026-10-10 keywords: ["RealPage","Thoma Bravo","rental software","revenue management","YieldStar","Lease Rent Options","AIRM","rental housing","antitrust litigation","Stephen Winn"] --- # RealPage’s challenges to rental-software restrictions **Question.** In which proceedings was RealPage the claimant rather than the antitrust defendant? **Answer.** RealPage challenged restrictions in New York and Berkeley; the retained New York docket records interim relief, not a final constitutional judgment. ## New York: preliminary relief in RealPage’s own action - Analysis: RealPage filed its action against New York Attorney General Letitia James in November 2025. The retained docket records a September 2026 preliminary injunction concerning Section 3 of General Business Law 340-B and denial of the attorney general’s dismissal motion. Here RealPage was seeking relief from enforcement rather than defending an antitrust complaint. [s-d166] - Documented: RealPage itself sued New York Attorney General Letitia James in November 2025, case 1:25-cv-09847. The retained docket records a 29 September 2026 preliminary injunction against enforcement of Section 3 of General Business Law 340-B and denial of the attorney general’s dismissal motion. [s-d166] - Qualification: RealPage is the plaintiff in this constitutional challenge. A preliminary injunction is not a final judgment and does not decide the separate antitrust claims. - Analysis: A preliminary injunction operates during litigation; it is not interchangeable with a final ruling that the entire law is invalid. It also does not determine whether the historical practices alleged in other proceedings were lawful. The constitutional challenge and the pricing cases answer different legal and factual questions. [s-d166] [s-d111] [s-d75] - Attributed: The amended complaint separated two Sherman Act Section 1 theories—sharing competitively sensitive information and agreements to use pricing software—from Section 2 monopoly and attempted-monopoly claims against RealPage. It also pleaded claims under identified state laws. [s-d111] [s-d75] - Qualification: Claims and legal theories in a complaint are not findings of liability. - Response: RealPage and landlord defendants sought dismissal and disputed the allegations and legal theories. - Outcome: Federal and state claims subsequently followed different procedural paths. ## Berkeley: a reported separate challenge - Analysis: The retained reported account describes a March 2025 challenge to Berkeley’s ordinance in federal court. It supports the existence and purpose of the challenge but does not establish its final outcome. The graph and narrative therefore do not count this action as a finding against RealPage or as a completed victory for it. [s-d170] - Attributed: A retained reported account describes RealPage’s March 2025 federal challenge to Berkeley’s rental-pricing-software ordinance, seeking to prevent enforcement on constitutional grounds. [s-d170] - Qualification: RealPage is the challenging plaintiff. The retained account does not establish the action’s final outcome. ## Sources - [s-d166] Court record source · s-d166 - [s-d111] Court record source · s-d111 - [s-d75] United States v. RealPage: proposed final judgment and competitive-impact statement, December 2025, Federal Register / U.S. Department of Justice - [s-d170] Media source · s-d170