A business owner should be able to explain how the company sets its prices, even when software makes the recommendation. That explanation may become critical when a customer challenges a charge, a regulator requests records, or a competitor alleges unlawful coordination.
Two federal developments in 2026 illustrate why pricing technology deserves legal review. One concerns competitors sharing sensitive information through a common platform. The other concerns prices tailored to individual consumers using personal data. For New Jersey business owners, landlords and property managers, both raise practical questions about vendor selection, contracts and the records needed to defend a business decision.
What the Recent Federal Developments Address
On September 4, 2026, the Department of Justice filed a proposed settlement with Pinnacle Property Management Services LLC in the RealPage antitrust litigation in the Middle District of North Carolina. DOJ alleges that Pinnacle and other landlords shared competitively sensitive information through pricing algorithms and participated in discussions about pricing strategies and software settings. The proposed judgment restricts specified uses of competing landlords’ nonpublic data and certain exchanges of sensitive information. 1
The settlement is not a court ruling that all revenue-management software is unlawful. Final entry remains subject to the Tunney Act process and court approval, and the proposed judgment contains no admission or adjudication of liability. Separately, the filed stipulation provides that Pinnacle will comply with the proposed judgment’s terms while that process proceeds. These negotiated obligations should not be presented as a new regulation governing every landlord.
The FTC’s August 19, 2026 proposed policy statement addresses a different concern: undisclosed prices based on an individual consumer’s personal data. Where consumers reasonably expect a common price, the proposal calls for clear disclosure of personalization, its basis and the types of data used. The FTC acknowledges that it lacks authority to prohibit personalized pricing in all circumstances but will enforce applicable laws aggressively. The statement therefore remains proposed, would not bind businesses even if adopted, and would require an enforcement case to establish a violation of existing law. Comments are due September 25, 2026.
Whose Data Is the Software Using
Start with a written description of the inputs. A system might use the company’s own costs and inventory, publicly advertised competitor prices, competitors’ confidential transaction data, or personal information about customers. Each raises different questions.
A property manager should know whether a vendor receives executed rents, concessions or projected vacancies from competing properties and how those inputs affect recommendations. Those are among the categories addressed in the Pinnacle materials. Calling information “aggregated” does not answer how it was collected, how current it is, or whether it can reveal an individual competitor’s position.
Request enough detail to evaluate the actual configuration and data flows. A vendor’s general assurance that its product is compliant gives counsel little to assess.
Who Makes and Can Explain the Pricing Decision
Identify who approves pricing rules, who can change them and whether the system publishes prices automatically. A manual override button, standing alone, does not establish that the business acts independently. The relevant record includes how employees use recommendations and whether communications with competitors influence their choices.
For example, an owner reducing rent after several weeks of vacancy should retain the contemporaneous business reasons for the change. Staff should also know when to stop a vendor or industry-group discussion that turns to competitors’ future rents, discounts or pricing intentions. Counsel should evaluate the exchange rather than assuming that every benchmarking conversation is permissible or prohibited.
What Are Customers Told About Personalized Prices
First determine why prices differ. A price changing with inventory or time is different from a price changing because of information about the particular person viewing it. The FTC proposal focuses on that latter practice and the consumer expectations surrounding it.
Review the actual customer experience, including the quote, checkout screen, sales script and privacy notice. Ask the vendor whether its settings use personal data or inferred willingness to pay. If they do, assess whether the customer receives an accurate explanation where it matters. A broad statement that the company uses data to improve services may not explain individualized pricing.
Disclosure also does not resolve every concern. The FTC expressly leaves open whether some personalized pricing practices could be unfair even when disclosed.
Does the Vendor Contract Address the Real Exposure
The contract should address the information and assistance the business will need if a pricing practice is challenged. Consider provisions requiring disclosure of data sources and permitted uses, notice before material changes to pricing logic, access to relevant records, and cooperation with investigations or litigation. Define whether the vendor may use the company’s data to train or operate products serving competitors.
Review indemnification clauses alongside liability caps, exclusions and defense-control provisions. An indemnity can have little practical value if another clause caps recovery at a few months of subscription fees or excludes the relevant claim. Contract language can allocate responsibility between the parties. However, it does not eliminate their obligations under applicable law.
Could the Business Reconstruct a Challenged Price
If a dispute arises, counsel may need to reconstruct what information entered the system, which settings applied, what recommendation resulted and who approved the final price. Relevant evidence may be with the vendor, an outside manager or a former employee.
Establish retention and export capabilities before that evidence becomes difficult to retrieve. When litigation is reasonably anticipated, have counsel direct appropriate preservation, including relevant logs, messages and configuration histories. Do not let a platform migration or routine deletion schedule erase material records.
The exposure may extend beyond government enforcement. DOJ’s competitive impact statement explains that qualifying private antitrust claims can seek treble damages and attorneys’ fees. A claimant must still establish the applicable legal elements.
Put Pricing Oversight Into the Business Process
Before renewing a pricing platform or enabling a new feature, bring together the business decision-maker, the person administering the software and counsel. Review the data inputs, customer disclosures and vendor agreement against what the product does. The goal is to make a pricing decision the business understands and can support with an accurate record.
To find out more about author Boris Peyzner, click here.