Seattle Passes Rent Pricing Ordinance: What It Means for Operators

At the end of June, the Seattle City Council unanimously passed an ordinance preventing a landlord from subscribing to, contracting with or exchanging anything of value in return for coordinating services (described below). While some are framing the legislation as a complete ban on algorithmic pricing, the reality is a bit more nuanced. Thanks to targeted advocacy and our work on a key amendment, the final version is narrower in scope, but it still introduces regulatory uncertainty. This ordinance is part of a broader political movement to regulate rent-setting technologies, driven by concerns that such platforms contribute to rent inflation or facilitate collusion. We fundamentally disagree with that characterization. Unfortunately, the ordinance moved unusually fast: it was introduced, heard in committee for just 35 minutes, and advanced for a vote the following week. 

WMFHA successfully secured a one-week delay in the Council’s process to negotiate amendments. As a result, important clarifications were added, and the final ordinance does not apply to:

• Software that relies solely on publicly available information;
• Tools that do not require a contract or agreement; and
• Basic recordkeeping systems that are not used for “coordination”

In other words, this is not a blanket ban. However, it does prohibit services that “coordinate” pricing recommendations for more than one landlord using an algorithmic or automated process.

The law introduces considerable ambiguity. It uses the term “algorithmic”, a broad and undefined term, rather than simply “algorithm.” This language could be interpreted to encompass an entire category of pricing tools. Because many services use both proprietary data of one landlord and require a contract to use, they may fall squarely within the scope of this ordinance. That said, a key nuance could limit how the law is applied: if landlords use the same platform independently, with separate inputs, settings, and strategies, it’s not clear that this constitutes “coordination” as defined by the ordinance.

This lack of clarity presents risk. We strongly recommend housing providers and operators consult with legal counsel to evaluate:

• Whether your software usage could be considered “coordinated”;
• Whether your vendor contracts involve covered services;
• How to adjust your practices to remain compliant.

Enforcement Provisions

An additional amendment introduced by Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, made the enforcement framework far more aggressive. Specifically:

• Each dwelling unit “coordinated” through such a service could constitute a separate $7,500 violation;
• Tenants are granted a private right of action, with the ability to sue landlords or service providers directly;
• Courts may award actual damages, penalties, and attorneys’ fees.

Given the ordinance’s broad language and potential for costly litigation, operators should act now to assess their risk exposure. We recommend taking the following steps as soon as possible:

• Review all software and tools currently in use;
• Evaluate contracts with vendors who provide “coordinating” services;
• Consult legal counsel to assess how your usage of any software may be interpreted under the ordinance

The ordinance will take effect 30 days after the Mayor signs it. Based on the current timeline, we expect that date to be August 1, 2025.