Establishes "Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act." *
What changed between versions
The preamble now explicitly frames the problem as one of restraining trade, not just colluding to raise prices, strengthening the antitrust justification for the bill.
The definition of 'coordinator' now explicitly excludes government entities that set or limit rents or sale prices through affordability controls in accordance with law, preventing the bill from being read to restrict legitimate government rent-setting authority.
New preamble findings were added noting that property management software companies and landlords using algorithmic systems have been subject to public and private litigation for alleged antitrust violations, and that the role of antitrust law in maintaining competitive markets remains vital despite evolving forms of restraint of trade.
The definition of 'coordinating function' was broadened from 'system, software, or process that uses computation' to 'system, software, algorithm, or other automated process that uses computation,' making it harder for companies to argue their tools fall outside the bill's reach.
A new definition of 'affordability controls' was added, covering rent restrictions established under government programs including Section 8, the Fair Housing Act, NJ Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency programs, and local rent control ordinances.
The introductory language of the definitions section was changed from 'As used in this act' to reference a specific pending companion bill by public law number and title citation, suggesting coordination with related legislation.
The claimed rent increase figure from a leading property management software company was changed from 'two to five percent' to 'up to seven percent.'
The bill's summary statement section at the end was removed, which is standard when a bill advances from introduction to committee report.
