Author: admin

This content is provided for general informational purposes only, and your access or use of the content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you or your organization and Cooley LLP, Cooley (UK) LLP, or any other affiliated practice or entity (collectively referred to as “Cooley”). By accessing this content, you agree that the information provided does not constitute legal or other professional advice. This content is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction, and you should not act or refrain from acting based on this content. This content may be changed without notice. It is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up to date, and it may not reflect the most current legal developments. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Do not send any confidential information to Cooley, as we do not have any duty to keep any information you provide to us confidential. When advising companies, our attorney-client relationship is with the company, not with any individual. This content may have been generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence (Al) in accordance with our Al Principles, may be considered Attorney Advertising and is subject to our legal notices.

The Competition Bureau (the Bureau) just discontinued its inquiry into the use of revenue management (algorithmic) pricing software for rental housing in Canada. The Bureau’s position statement provides useful guidance to help businesses understand how their use of algorithmic pricing will be treated under the Competition Act (the Act) – not only in the context of property rental markets, but any markets where these tools are being used.

The investigation

The Bureau commenced its inquiry in January 2025 in response to public concerns about housing affordability and whether landlords were colluding on rental prices by using algorithmic pricing software. Algorithmic pricing software combines multiple data points, including users’ competitively sensitive data, and supply and demand data, to calculate recommended pricing. 

In this case, the Bureau investigated whether landlords and property managers used algorithmic pricing tools supplied by RealPage Canada, Inc. and Yardi Canada, Ltd. in a manner that resulted in tenants paying higher rents than would otherwise have been the case. The concern with these types of pricing tools is they allow users to set rents based on non-public, competitively sensitive data. The Bureau considered whether this behaviour raised concerns under both the civil and criminal provisions of the Act. 

The Bureau’s investigation focused on: 

• Abuse of dominance: Whether RealPage and Yardi were engaging in practices contrary to the abuse of dominance provisions of the Act that were intended to harm or in fact had harmed competition in the rental housing market. The specific practices investigated include: the collection and comingling of non-public, competitively sensitive information from landlords, the use of pricing algorithms to artificially inflate price recommendations, and the extent to which software makes it easier to comply with those recommendations or provides disincentives not to do so. 
• Anticompetitive collaboration: Whether RealPage or Yardi entered into anticompetitive agreements or arrangements. 

The Bureau concluded that, because the use of revenue management software is not widespread in Canada, there was insufficient evidence to suggest either abuse of dominance or anticompetitive collaboration. 

However, the Bureau has suggested it will continue to monitor market participants’ behaviour in the rental housing market and may reopen its inquiry if it obtains further information. 

In the US, the Department of Justice, in ongoing litigation, sued RealPage and several landlords in August 2024, alleging that its software facilitates price fixing. 

Guidance

The Bureau indicated that, while its inquiry did not find a contravention of the Act, it “remains concerned about the use of algorithmic pricing tools in the Canadian rental housing market and their potential to harm competition.” 

The Bureau has recommended that landlords review their practices and software providers review their product offerings to ensure they do not contravene the Act. Specifically, the Bureau recommends they ask themselves the following questions: 

• Does the revenue management software use non-public or competitively sensitive information from competitors? This may include a variety of factors relevant to landlord decision-making, including lease terms, rents, vacancy data, and rent concessions. 
• Does the software affect a landlord’s ability to reject or override price recommendations, or impose penalties for doing so? The Bureau is concerned with how easy it is for landlords to accept and implement pricing recommendations, and whether the software creates an environment conducive to price coordination.
• Does the software artificially inflate price recommendations—e.g., by setting a minimum price floor or limiting available inventory to create an artificial lack of supply?
• Does the software disclose non-public, commercially sensitive information about competitors? 

Key takeaways

While this case focussed on the use of algorithmic pricing in the rental housing market, it clearly suggests that companies should expect that the Bureau is actively monitoring the use of algorithmic pricing tools in other markets.

Companies seeking to provide or use algorithmic pricing or similar revenue management tools should carefully review their practices from a competition law compliance perspective. In this regard, the Bureau’s guidance provides a useful framework that can assist companies in all markets where algorithmic pricing tools are used with assessing whether their use of these types of tools could raise serious compliance issues under the Act.