Yardi and FPI Settlement: What Rental Owners Should Know

FPI Care's settlement in the Yardi rent-pricing litigation received preliminary court sign-off on October 23, 2025. Lead plaintiffs' counsel reports a proposed $2.8 million fund. The court's order needs further settlement steps and expressly states that the settlement is not an admission or proof of wrongdoing. Owners reviewing pricing software should know the clear leases, data and choice step involved.

Updated October 5, 2026. This article explains dated court records. A final FPI sign-off order, claims deadline or payout has not been checked for this update.

What the FPI approval order establishes

The case is In re Yardi Revenue Care Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:23-cv-01391-RSL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The October 23, 2025 order preliminarily approves the FPI settlement, certifies a settlement class and appoints lead counsel.

At that stage, the judge deferred formal notice and a fund-allocation plan. A fairness hearing would follow approved notice to consider final sign-off. The order also limits how the settlement can be used as proof. Preliminary sign-off leaves more court steps.

The lead plaintiffs' counsel's case page identifies the $2.8 million amount and describes the proposed settlement's upside support for claims against other defendants. It is a party's account. Exact software restrictions and cooperation duties need the signed lease. The linked sign-off order does not set out their full terms.

Read the dates and parties before drawing a conclusion

The September 2025 settlement bid and October preliminary sign-off are other milestones. Later orders in the broader case also concern other defendants or procedural questions:

• December 4, 2024: Judge Robert S. Lasnik denied defendants' joint motion to dismiss in record 187.
• October 23, 2025: Record 462 granted preliminary sign-off of the FPI settlement.
• March 30, 2026: Record 535 granted preliminary sign-off of a split settlement with Balke Brown Transwestern and 2B Housing.
• April 29, 2026: Record 541 extended briefing dates for a motion to exclude.

Those records set their own dated actions. They do not set the complete current docket, a final result for each defendant or a payment available to any particular resident. Check the actual order, affected parties and later case records when acting on a settlement headline.

Why the alleged agreement matters

In its December 2024 dismissal ruling, the district court considered allegations that competing landlords contributed commercially sensitive, nonpublic facts and participated in a coordinated pricing arrangement through Yardi. The court found the alleged conspiracy plausible and applied per se analysis to the alleged horizontal price-fixing lease. It expressly distinguished a plausible allegation from proof that a conspiracy exists.

Per se analysis treats certain set restraints. This includes horizontal price fixing, as inherently anticompetitive. The rule of reason examines a restraint's competitive effects and justifications in context. The December order addresses which analysis applied to the pleaded arrangement. It does not make each purchase of revenue-care software unlawful.

The DOJ and FTC's March 1, 2024 statement of interest argues that competitors' joint delegation of key pricing choices to a common algorithm can violate antitrust law even. When participants retain some ability to deviate. That is the agencies' position in the filing. Keeping an override log, by itself, does not set that a particular pricing arrangement complies with the law.

What Gibson v. Cendyn decided

In Gibson v. Cendyn Group, decided August 15, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a case concerning Las Vegas hotel-pricing software. The plaintiffs had abandoned their appeal of the split alleged hub-and-spoke conspiracy claim. The remaining claim challenged person software-permits leases.

The court concluded that the leases, as alleged, did not restrain competition in the key hotel-room market. It noted that confidential competitor-facts sharing had not been alleged there. It also left unaddressed a question about binding delegation of pricing that the allegations did not present.

Read that choice alongside the allegations and procedural posture of the Yardi case. Other facts and claims matter. The hotel ruling does not give a blanket sign-off of rental-pricing tools. The FPI settlement does not set wrongdoing by each software user.

Review the vendor inputs and the actual pricing process

An owner can turn the original article's clarity and independence questions into a logged running review. Start with the contract, vendor records, actual settings and a recent pricing choice. A sales description alone may leave key questions unanswered.

• Inputs: What comes from the owner's site, publicly advertised listings or nonpublic facts about competing sites? How recent and detailed is it?
• Data use: Does the site contribute facts? Who can use it, how is it combined and what do the contract and technical records permit?
• Choice power: Who reviews a tip, who can change it and are there written or running rules to follow it?
• Records: Can the team retrieve the original tip, the actual offer, the choice date, the approver and the site-clear explanation?
• Unanswered questions: Which answers come from checked files, and which still need clarification? Record the gap and the person in charge for resolving it.

For case, a team who changes a tip should be able to explain the actual choice using contemporaneous records. An overwritten number does not show what the tool proposed or why the offer changed. Keep that explanation connected to the owner's reports. The monthly site care report guide explains how money results, open issues and owner choices fit together.

These questions improve the facts available for a review. They do not find the legality of a vendor, guarantee a particular rent or set a defense to a claim. This article does not assess a clear site's pricing arrangement.

Connect ethics to a decision the owner can explain

Clear care needs an owner to know what the team is doing with data, who has power and what supports the choice. Start with one actual workflow, spot missing facts and follow the open questions through to a logged response.

For broader care education, PME offers a free six-day Site Care Excellence email course on care systems and clear updates. For the case developments discussed here, use the dated court records linked above.