Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—M.D. Tenn.: State AGs lose bid to disrupt approval of RealPage renter class action settlements, (Jul 17, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

The states did not have a compelling concern to intervene because they remained free to pursue state sovereign claims for civil penalties and injunctive relief, they just could not pursue parens patriae double recovery.

A group of five state Attorneys General did not have sound reasons for intervention to challenge preliminary approval of a dozen settlement agreements in the apartment renter class action against algorithmic software provider RealPage, Inc. (RealPage), held the federal district court in Nashville, Tennessee. Orders of preliminary approval did not impair or impinge on sovereign antitrust enforcement duties because the settlement agreements carefully carved-out sovereign rights to vindicate sovereign claims. The court denied the State AGs’ motion for intervention and clarification accordingly (In Re: Realpage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:22-cv-01082 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 16, 2026)).

Defendant RealPage developed an integrated technology platform that provides software solutions for the multifamily and student housing market. Multifamily tenant plaintiffs sued RealPage alleging a conspiracy to form an illegal price-fixing cartel that helped landlord and property manager clients obtain optimal prices for rental units—regardless of market force—in violation of the Sherman Act. The tenants claimed the price fixing caused them to pay as much as 10.9% more for rent.

After months of effort, plaintiffs and some defendants began presenting multiple settlement agreements to the district court for preliminary approval on the apartment renters’ antitrust price-fixing claims. The court granted preliminary approval, but the Attorneys General of the District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington (state AGs) filed a motion to intervene and to clarify or modify the preliminary approval orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60.

The court denied the state AGs’ motion for intervention and clarification. The court reasoned the state AGs did not have a compelling concern that the settlement agreements and orders of preliminary approval somehow impaired or impinged on their enforcement duties. The court said they articulated an “incomplete, if not erroneous reading of the settlement agreements” and had an enforcement concern that was “more imagined than real.”

The court continued that the settling parties had “carefully and respectfully” carved-out the state AGs’ authority to seek civil fines and injunctive relief. The state AGs simply could not seek double or duplicate damages for class members compensated from the multi-million-dollar class settlement fund.

The court perceived that the state AGs overlooked how the settlement agreements distinguished between state or sovereign claims and only provided monetary relief to renter class members on their own claims. The settlement agreements did not release state claims to vindicate sovereign or quasi-sovereign interests. The court said the settling parties cited to legal authority that the states’ parens patriae claims belonged to the class members, not to the states. The state AGs did not present persuasive authority to the contrary. The court said the state AGs’ position would not advance the public interest because it would lead to “confusion and chaos” impeding closure by settlement.

The court said it appeared the state AGs understood their “attempt to collect double damages” was untenable insofar as they attacked the injunction prohibiting double damages as procedurally improper. The court found the injunction release was clear and legally proper under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. It released both direct settling class member claims and any future indirect claims brought on their behalf, and it enjoined anyone purporting to act or bring claims on their behalf.

Again, the state AGs offered no contradictory legal authority. The state AGs remained free to pursue sovereign claims for civil penalties and injunctive relief, “[t]he settlements did not release those claims.” The court held the injunction also conformed to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, because it was in aid of jurisdiction, enforcement, and effectuation of settlement agreements in this complex antitrust multi-district litigation.

The court concluded that denial of the state AGs’ motion was in the public interest such that the parties to the case could benefit from their hard work in settling their dispute. Denial of the motion to intervene also vindicated the “competitive protections embodied in the antitrust laws.”

The Case is No. 3:22-cv-01082.

Judge: Crenshaw, Jr., W.

Attorneys: Adam J. Zapala (Cotchett, Pitre & Mccarthy, LLP) for MDL 3071 Plaintiffs. Ferdose Al-Taie (Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC) for MDL 3071 Defendants.

Cases: Antitrust TennesseeNews