Algorithmic Pricing In Rental Housing: The Bureau Closes An Investigation And Issues Industry Guidance

On November 10, 2025, the Competition Bureau announced the conclusion of its investigation into the use of algorithmic pricing software supplied by RealPage Canada Inc. ("RealPage") and Yardi Canada, Ltd. ("Yardi") in Canada's rental housing market. Initially launched in January 2025 following concerns raised by tenants and advocacy groups and a US Department of Justice lawsuit against RealPage, the Bureau's investigation was aimed at assessing whether the use of RealPage's and Yardi's revenue management software was harming competition in Canada. The Bureau indicated that harm to competition could be in the form of higher rental prices, higher vacancy rates, higher tenant turnover rates, among other possible anticompetitive effects.

The Bureau's investigation focused on whether RealPage's and Yardi's actions constituted an abuse of dominance and/or involved the entering into of agreements or arrangements that substantially harm competition. Regarding the potential abuses of dominance, the Bureau focused on three main types of conduct engaged in by the companies:

• the collection and comingling of non-public or competitively sensitive data;
• the use of special rules in their pricing algorithms to artificially inflate price recommendations; and
• creating incentives for high compliance with its price recommendations by penalizing landlords that rejected the software's price recommendations.

The Bureau engaged a wide range of stakeholders in its investigation, including property owners, property managers, tenant associations, and revenue management software providers, as well as academic experts, advocacy groups, and other competition authorities.

The Bureau concluded that the adoption and use of RealPage's and Yardi's revenue management software in Canada was not sufficiently pervasive to support a finding of abuse of dominance. Moreover, the Bureau did not find evidence of the companies entering into agreements or arrangements that are harming competition in Canada.

Competition Bureau Guidance Regarding Revenue Management Software

Notwithstanding the Bureau concluding its investigation without finding competitive harm, the Bureau outlined its guidance to the real estate industry (namely landlords, property managers and algorithmic software providers) for how revenue management software can be used in compliance with the Competition Act:

• Use of non-public data: The Bureau indicated that the use of non-public or competitively sensitive information raises concerns of a potential harm to competition. This is because the relevant algorithm would be generating prices for various competitors based on information that would ordinarily not be available to them. The use of such information in price recommendations could therefore lead to less competitive rental prices being offered. Non-public, competitively sensitive information refers to information that is not available through public sources and is used to inform competitive decision-making. It includes the practice of inputting non-public or competitively sensitive data in an algorithm's back-end.
• Software design structure: The Bureau states that software design features that make it easier to accept and implement pricing recommendations than to reject or override them or penalizes users for rejecting recommendations raise concerns. These practices increase the potential for competitors who are using a common software to implement common pricing strategies and create an environment that is conducive to price coordination.
• Artificial inflation and price floors: Software features that artificially inflate prices or limit the level to which prices can fall have also been flagged by the Bureau as practices that would raise concerns. Such practices extend to features that allows users to limit available inventory, thereby creating false scarcity.
• Sharing of competitor information: The Bureau's position is that software providers should not disclose any information about competitors of their clients, whether intentionally or inadvertently, to their clients. This includes disclosing whether a client's rivals use the pricing software. In the Bureau's view, such practices raise anti-competitive information sharing or facilitating hub-and-spoke conspiracy concerns.

The Bureau's Other Algorithmic Pricing Enforcement Action and its Increased Focus on Algorithmic Pricing Software

In addition to its now concluded investigation of RealPage and Yardi, the Bureau has an ongoing investigation of Kalibrate Canada Inc. ("Kalibrate"), which was commenced in July 2024.

This investigation seeks to determine whether Kalibrate, which provides data services to retail gas stations, has contravened the abuse of dominance provisions by incentivizing gas stations to reduce price competition through the use of non-public sensitive competitor data in its algorithm. The Bureau is also investigating whether Kalibrate has entered into agreements that substantially lessen or prevent competition. On July 24, 2024, the Bureau obtained a court order to obtain documents and information from Kalibrate to advance its investigation.

As evidenced by these two investigations, the Competition Bureau has made algorithmic pricing an area of focus. This was further evidenced on June 10, 2025 when the Bureau issued a discussion paper on the subject, initiating a public consultation during the summer of 2025. The consultation identifies several competition concerns in relation to algorithmic pricing software, including competitor collaboration, predatory pricing, tying and bundling practices and barriers to market entry.

Broader Implications

While the Bureau's most recent guidance following the conclusion of its investigation into RealPage and Yardi was specifically aimed at the real estate industry, it gives insight into the Bureau's views about the use of pricing algorithms more broadly.

• Clarity: The Bureau's guidance following the RealPage/Yardi investigation provides some clarity with respect to the type of data that creates significant competition law risks when used in pricing software, namely, non-public or competitively sensitive information obtained from competitors of the users of the software. It also clarifies that backend uses of such data (that is, using the data in an anonymized manner) and instances where delegating pricing decisions to a common third-party algorithm can both raise significant competition concerns.
• Lack of Flexibility for Firms: Firms may need to conduct extensive cost-benefit analyses when deciding whether or not to use algorithmic pricing models due to the Bureau's advice not to use software that artificially raise prices or set price floors. In the regular course of business, firms have the option of leveraging market insights to set high price points or to set baseline prices for their products. The Bureau's guidance suggests that such flexibility may not exist (for price floors) and/or should be muted (for inflated prices) when pricing software is used.
• Concerns for Software Developers: The Bureau's guidance raises a unique concern for developers of algorithmic pricing software programs. One of the most potent marketing tools for software providers is proving widespread adoption of their products by informing prospective customers about the prominent clients that already use the service. With the Bureau's guidance that disclosing the fact that a competitor uses the product is a competition concern, software developers cannot rely on their client list to generate business within the same industry. This could be significant constraint on growing a developer's business.
• The Specter of Civil Class Actions: Outside of the risk of investigation and legal challenges from the Bureau, firms must bear in mind that the prospect of a class action also looms in the background. For RealPage, a proposed class action has been filed against the company in Canada, claiming that over a dozen landlords and property managers have conspired to use its software to artificially raise rents. The lawsuit seeks financial compensation for tenants who may have overpaid rent since 2009 as a result of this alleged scheme.¹

When participating in any revenue management service, whether developing, operating, or subscribing, it is important to be aware of the potential competition risks, particularly those related to algorithmic pricing. If you have any questions about these risks or the applicable laws, please contact a member of our Competition Law Group. Our team is ready to assist you and provide guidance on these matters.

Footnote

1 CBC News, "Proposed class-action lawsuit accuses companies of price-fixing rents in Canada" (10 December 2024). Online: <CBC Proposed class-action lawsuit article>.