Antitrust Litigation 2025

• Published date: 23 September 2025
• Law Firm: Dickinson Wright PLLC
• Author: Mr Dan W. Goldfine, John Desmond , Patrick J. Masterson and Alexis Taitel

Antitrust Litigation in Arizona in the Real Estate, Municipal Services and Other Sectors

Led by a Democratic Attorney General, Arizona is emerging as a key player in the enforcement of federal and state antitrust laws that aim to prevent anticompetitive business conduct. From the burgeoning real estate and rental housing markets to the tech industry, businesses and consumers can expect many developments in the antitrust landscape as courts grapple to strike a balance between innovation and competition. At the same time, labour interests and wage-fixing conspiracies are receiving increased attention. Through Arizona's adoption of the Uniform State Antitrust Act, federal court analysis of the antitrust laws guide Arizona state court interpretations of the state antitrust laws. This necessarily makes federal courts' resolution of high-profile antitrust cases against defendants like Apple and Live Nation even more relevant to Arizonans, as federal outcomes can directly influence the effects of state antitrust laws. Likewise, in the neighbouring State of Nevada, the antitrust litigation landscape is seemingly expanding, as plaintiffs in the hospitality and nursing sectors are seeking relief from alleged wage-fixing schemes.

Background on Arizona's antitrust law

In 1974, then-State Senator Sandra Day O'Connor introduced the Uniform State Antitrust Act in Arizona. (Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) Title 44, Chapter 10, Article 1.) Like the Sherman Act, the Arizona Antitrust Act prohibits any "contract, combination or conspiracy between two or more persons in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce," and the "establishment, maintenance or use of a monopoly or an attempt to establish a monopoly of trade or commerce ... for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing or maintaining prices." That is, the Arizona Antitrust Act is just as vague as the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act. It nevertheless expressly provides that uniformity with federal antitrust laws should be an interpretative guide for state courts: "This article shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this article among those states that enact it. It is the intent of the legislature that in construing this article, the courts may use as a guide interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust statutes." (ARS Section 44-1412.) Since the adoption of the 1974 Act, Arizona courts have generally followed federal courts in interpreting Arizona antitrust laws. (See, eg, Three Phoenix Co. v Pace Indus., Inc., 135 Arizona 113, 118-19, 659 P.2d 1258, 1263-64 (1983) (applying federal antitrust case law, the per se rule applies to horizontal market division (although it is not clear that the restraint was a horizontal market division agreement) and cases cited therein).) The key exception to this uniformity rule is that Arizona permits indirect purchasers to pursue antitrust claims. (Bunker's Glass Co. v Pilkington PLC, 206 Arizona 9, 19, 75 P.3d 99, 109 (2003).) This decision was largely premised on the Arizona Constitution, which provides that a "person ... injured ... by [an antitrust violation] may bring an action for ... damages sustained." (Arizona Constitution, Article 14, Section 15.)

Algorithm-based price-fixing conspiracy in the rental housing market

Arizona courts are set to play an active role in addressing antitrust litigation in the rental housing context as Arizona Attorney General Kristin Mayes' commenced an antitrust action on behalf of the state against RealPage, Inc. and nine rental property lessors in Arizona. Set at the cross-section of the rental-housing industry and market participants' use of emerging technologies, multifamily housing lessors' common utilisation of revenue management software is an expected focal point in the antitrust field for years to come.

Brought in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County, the complaint alleges that the lessor defendants entered into a hub-and-spoke conspiracy centred around RealPage to charge monopolistic prices. (Arizona, ex rel. Kristin K. Mayes v RealPage, Inc. et al., (Case No. CV2024-003889).) Specifically, the state alleges the lessor defendants collectively agreed to provide RealPage with their respective pricing and occupancy data, which RealPage then feeds into an algorithm. RealPage's algorithm provides each lessor with pricing on their specific units, which the lessor defendants allegedly agreed to accept and follow. That is, the lessor defendants are allegedly outsourcing their pricing authority to a common entity, which sets prices for all of the lessor defendants. The state further alleges the lessor defendants forego high rates of occupancy in exchange for the monopolistic pricing RealPage provides. Such monopolistic pricing is only possible if the alleged conspirators all adhere to RealPage's pricing. To that end, RealPage allegedly seeks to promote and enforce compliance with its provided pricing. The alleged result of the conspiracy is significantly higher prices for renters in Arizona.

Given the novel dynamics of the alleged conspiracy, Arizona courts are likely to look to federal court applications of the antitrust laws to algorithm-based conspiracies. Indeed, the Arizona Uniform Antitrust Act encourages such guidance, stating "[i]t is the intent of the legislature that in construing this article, the courts may use as a guide interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust statutes." (ARS Section 44-1412.) The novel aspects of the alleged conspiracy, however, frustrate harmonised applications of the antitrust laws. There are presently three...