Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 361 Filed 04/21/25 Page 1 of 142
`
`The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`Case No. 2:23-cv-01391-RSL
`In Re YARDI REVENUE MANAGEMENT
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`DEFENDANT GREYSTAR
`MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC’S
`ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`MCKENNA DUFFY and MICHAEL
`BRETT, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GREYSTAR
`MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC’S
`ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`401 Union Street, Suite 3300
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2668
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`
`8 9
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 361 Filed 04/21/25 Page 2 of 142
`
`
`
`Defendant Greystar Management Services, LLC (“GMS” or “Defendant”), by and through
`its undersigned counsel, hereby submits the following Answer to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class
`Action Complaint (“Consolidated Complaint”) and Affirmative Defenses (“Answer”).
`In submitting this Answer and these defenses, GMS has, for ease of reference, set forth
`herein the Consolidated Complaint’s headings, sub-headings, and paragraph headings. To the
`extent that those headings contain substantive allegations or characterizations, GMS denies and
`disputes them. GMS denies each allegation in the Consolidated Complaint, except to the extent
`expressly admitted. GMS denies that it has engaged in illegal conduct or that any conduct that it is
`alleged to have been engaged in has harmed competition or consumers.
`
`1.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`Rental prices across America have reached new levels of unaffordability for the average
`American. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development specifically defines
`households as “rent-burdened” if they pay more than 30% of their income for housing. This
`is because households that pay so much of their income for housing may, according to
`HUD, “have difficulties affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and
`medical care.”1 According to 2023 studies, the average American renter is now cost
`burdened, with the typical renter now paying more than 30% percent of their income for
`housing.2 This is the first time this has occurred in the more than 20 years that Moody’s
`Analytics has tracked this metric.
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 1:
` To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the
`Consolidated Complaint purport to characterize or describe documents or other sources, GMS
`states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any characterization or description that
`is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. GMS further denies the characterization
`of the allegations. To the extent that this Paragraph contains any other factual allegations that
`require a response, GMS denies those allegations.
`
`
`1 HUD, “Rental Burdens: Rethinking Affordability Measures” (available at
`https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_092214.html#:~:text=HUD%20defines%
`20cost% 2Dburdened%20families,of%20one’s%20income%20on%20rent) (last visited Nov. 3, 2023).
`
`2 The Hill, “The Average American tenant is rent-burdened. Here’s what that means for the Economy,” February
`21, 2023 (available at https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/infrastructure/3866947-renters-paying-
`30-percent-of-income-for-housing-crisis/).
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`401 Union Street, Suite 3300
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2668
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GREYSTAR
`MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC’S
`ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`
`8 9
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 361 Filed 04/21/25 Page 3 of 142
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Unbeknownst to millions of Americans struggling to pay rent, Landlord Defendants3 are
`using a coordinated pricing algorithm administered by Defendant Yardi Systems, Inc.
`(“Yardi”), a property management software company, that is specifically designed to inflate
`rental prices. Indeed, the artificial price inflation is in the very name of the algorithm:
`“RENTmaximizer.”4 For more than a decade, Yardi has repeatedly touted the ability of the
`algorithm to generate supracompetitive pricing, emphasizing how Defendant Landlords that
`use “RENTmaximizer” are able to increase rents faster than comparable properties.
`Plaintiffs challenge this conspiracy among Landlord Defendants and Yardi that has led to
`ordinary Americans being overcharged on rental prices that they pay across the nation.
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 2:
`Paragraph 2 asserts legal conclusions to which no response is
`required. To the extent a response is required, GMS denies the allegations. To the extent the
`allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Consolidated Complaint purport to characterize or describe
`documents or other sources, GMS states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context.
`GMS further denies the characterization of the allegations. To the extent the allegations in
`Paragraph 2 are directed to other Defendants and/or third parties to this action, GMS lacks
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations and,
`therefore, denies those allegations. GMS denies any remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 2 to
`the extent they purport to relate to GMS and require a response.
`
`3.
`
`Landlord Defendants manage multifamily rental properties across the United States. In a
`competitive market, these companies would compete on rental prices to attract renters—that
`
`3 Defendants A. J. Dwoskin & Associates, Inc.; Affinity Property Management, LLC; Apartment Services, Inc.;
`Ardmore Residential, Inc.; Asset Living, LLC; Avenue5 Residential, LLC; Balaciano Group; Balke Brown
`Transwestern, Inc.; Banyan Living Ohio LLC; Bridge Property Management, L.C.; Calibrate Property
`Management, LLC; Concord Management, Ltd.; Creekwood Property Corporation; Dalton Management, Inc.;
`Dweck Properties, Ltd.; Edward Rose & Sons; Envolve Communities, LLC; FPI Management, Inc.; GHP
`Management Corporation; Goodman Real Estate, Inc.; GRE Management, LLC; Greystar Management Services,
`LLC; Grubb Properties, LLC; Guardian Management, LLC; HNN Associates, LLC; Kre Group, Inc.; LumaCorp,
`Inc.; Manco Abbott, Inc.; McWhinney Property Management, LLC; Morguard Management Company Inc.;
`Oakland Management Corp. D/B/A Beztak Management Company; PRG Real Estate Management, Inc.; Ram
`Partners, LLC; R.D. Merrill Real Estate Holdings, LLC; Rpm Living, LLC; Sentinel Real Estate Corporation;
`Singh Management Co., L.L.C.; Southern Management Companies LLC; Summit Management Services, Inc.; The
`Habitat Company LLC; Towne Properties Asset Management Company, Ltd.; Walton Communities, LLC;
`Western National Securities D/B/A Western National Property Management; Willow Bridge Property Company
`National D/B/A Lincoln Property Company; and Woodward Management Partners, LLC, collectively, are the
`“Landlord Defendants,” and together with Defendant Yardi Systems, Inc., the “Defendants.”
`
`4 Yardi’s website indicates that “RENTmaximizer” has been renamed “Revenue IQ.” See “Revenue IQ,”
`https://www.yardi.com/products/yardi-revenue-iq/. The domain https://www.yardi.com/rentmaximizer redirects
`users to the “Revenue IQ” page, which describes Revenue IQ as substantially similar to RENTmaximizer. All
`references herein to “RENTmaximizer” in this complaint also include by reference Revenue IQ.
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`401 Union Street, Suite 3300
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2668
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GREYSTAR
`MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC’S
`ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`
`8 9
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 361 Filed 04/21/25 Page 4 of 142
`
`
`
`is, they would set rents in accordance with the fundamentals of supply and demand. When
`demand surges, rents may go up. When demand falls, property management companies
`normally prioritize occupancy rates, and thus increase concessions (e.g., offering a first
`month free) to attract renters.
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 3: To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 3 are directed to
`other Defendants and/or third parties to this action, GMS lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies those allegations. To
`the extent that this Paragraph contains any other factual allegations that require a response, GMS
`admits that it, and/or its corporate affiliates, manages multifamily rental properties across the
`United States. To the extent that this Paragraph contains any other factual allegations that require a
`response, GMS denies those allegations.
`
`4.
`
`In the absence of knowledge about competitors’ pricing strategies, property managers can
`only make their best educated guesses and set their prices at optimal positions—usually a
`bit lower than what is offered by competitors—to attract renters in the market. If a lessor
`wants to take a chance to raise rents regardless of market conditions, other competitors will
`soon take that lessor’s business away by listing their units at competitive prices.
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 4: To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 4 are directed to
`other Defendants and/or third parties to this action, GMS lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies those allegations.
`GMS further denies the characterization of the allegations. To the extent that this Paragraph
`contains any other factual allegations that require a response, GMS denies those allegations.
`
`5.
`
`Yardi, together with the Landlord Defendants, has unlawfully solved this problem with a
`product originally called “RENTmaximizer.” Launched in 2011, RENTmaximizer is an
`algorithmic pricing tool marketed to lessors that is intended to “automate” lessors’ “rental
`pricing process” and thus help “multifamily property managers maximize rental income” by
`“increasing . . . revenue by 3 to 6 percent”5—that is, RENTmaximizer effectively
`outsources the management of rental pricing from a landlord to Yardi itself, which then
`implements higher prices collectively across a group of landlords. According to Terri
`Dowen, Yardi’s senior vice president of sales, “[b]y automating rental pricing that factors
`in portfolio and market data, RENTmaximizer not only improves rental income while
`
`
`5 See Yardi Adds Two Revenue Management Experts to its Yardi RENTmaximizer Team, Business Wire (June 22,
`2011), available at https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110622006700/en/Yardi-Adds-Two-Revenue-
`Management-Experts-to-its-Yardi-RENTmaximizer-Team.
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`401 Union Street, Suite 3300
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2668
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GREYSTAR
`MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC’S
`ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`
`8 9
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 361 Filed 04/21/25 Page 5 of 142
`
`
`
`maintaining occupancy, it simplifies the process by eliminating rent rate guesswork and
`traditional sales devices such as concessions and specials.”6
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 5:
`Paragraph 5 asserts legal conclusions to which no response is
`required. To the extent a response is required, GMS denies the allegations. To the extent the
`allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Consolidated Complaint purport to characterize or describe
`documents or other sources, GMS states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context.
`GMS further denies the characterization of the allegations. To the extent the allegations in
`Paragraph 5 are directed to other Defendants and/or third parties to this action, GMS lacks
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations and,
`therefore, denies those allegations. GMS denies any remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 5 to
`the extent they purport to relate to GMS and require a response.
`
`6.
`
`In other words, Yardi’s RENTmaximizer is specifically, and publicly, marketed as a means
`to eliminate the discounting that would occur in a competitive market. Landlord Defendants
`who agree to use RENTmaximizer understand that its purpose is to foil the operation of the
`competitive market. Indeed, in marketing materials, Yardi advertises that “revenue grows
`on Yardi”7 and that Yardi users “beat the market by a minimum of 2%” and “gain[] on
`average more than 6% net rental income.”8 Yardi even tells its users: “You manage your
`business, we manage your pricing”
`
`
`6 The Rockbridge Group Increases Rent Revenue with Yardi RENTmaximizer, Business Wire (June 21, 2016),
`https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160621005024/en/Rockbridge-Group-Increases-Rent-Revenue-
`Yardi-RENTmaximizer.
`
`7 Yardi, Revenue Grows on Yardi: RENTmaximizer (video) (June 19, 2017),
`https://www.facebook.com/Yardi/videos/revenue-grows-on-yardi-rentmaximizer/1501017369961971/.
`
`8 Yardi, Yardi Multifamily Suite (2019), available at https://resources.yardi.com/documents/ multifamily-suite-
`brochure/.
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`401 Union Street, Suite 3300
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2668
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GREYSTAR
`MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC’S
`ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`
`8 9
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 361 Filed 04/21/25 Page 6 of 142
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 6:
`Paragraph 6 asserts legal conclusions to which no response is
`required. To the extent a response is required, GMS denies the allegations. To the extent the
`allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Consolidated Complaint purport to characterize or describe
`documents or other sources, GMS states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context.
`GMS further denies the characterization of the allegations. To the extent the allegations in
`Paragraph 6 are directed to other Defendants and/or third parties to this action, GMS lacks
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations and,
`therefore, denies those allegations. GMS denies any remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 6 to
`the extent they purport to relate to GMS and require a response.
`
`7.
`
`Marketing materials for Yardi’s “Revenue IQ” product—which, on information and belief,
`is a rebranded version of RENTmaximizer—echo the same theme, boasting that lessors can
`use Yardi’s pricing software to “[w]in at pricing” and “[c]onsistently beat the market”9:
`
`
`9 Yardi, Revenue IQ, https://www.yardielevate.com/multifamily/revenue-iq/ (last visited Sept. 7, 2023).
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`401 Union Street, Suite 3300
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2668
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GREYSTAR
`MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC’S
`ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`
`8 9
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 361 Filed 04/21/25 Page 7 of 142
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 7: To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the
`Consolidated Complaint purport to characterize or describe documents or other sources, GMS
`states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any characterization or description that
`is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. GMS further denies the characterization
`of the allegations. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 7 are directed to other Defendants
`and/or third parties to this action, GMS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`concerning the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies those allegations. GMS denies any
`remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 7 to the extent they purport to relate to GMS and require
`a response.
`
`8.
`
`According to Yardi’s publicly available promotional materials, a key input to Yardi’s
`pricing algorithm, or “engine,” is competitor pricing data. Specifically, RENTmaximizer
`asks users to input their data, such as rental rates and occupancy, into its system;
`meanwhile, the system automatically incorporates market-specific information on
`“comparative rent” to, in Yardi’s words, give users “accurate and timely information
`regarding your market—including every comp and how you compete”10—or what it also
`calls “complete visibility,” including “performance benchmarking” “compared to the
`market, submarket, and competition”
`
`
`10 Yardi Systems, Inc., Yardi Elevate (2020), available at https://resources.yardi.com/documents/ elevate-suite-for-
`multifamily-brochure/.
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`401 Union Street, Suite 3300
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2668
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GREYSTAR
`MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC’S
`ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`
`8 9
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 361 Filed 04/21/25 Page 8 of 142
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 8: To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the
`Consolidated Complaint purport to characterize or describe documents or other sources, GMS
`states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any characterization or description that
`is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. GMS further denies the characterization
`of the allegations. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 8 are directed to other Defendants
`and/or third parties to this action, GMS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`concerning the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies those allegations. GMS denies any
`remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 8 to the extent they purport to relate to GMS and require
`a response.
`
`9.
`
`Yardi specifically markets to potential users that Yardi RENTmaximizer / RevenueIQ
`provides extensive data on competitors’ pricing that users can then use to maximize their
`own rental prices. For example, in one non-public 2023 presentation provided to a potential
`customer, Yardi touted that through RevenueIQ, “your operations team gains holistic
`revenue intelligence from rental rates and occupancy to property performance benchmarks
`compared to the market, submarket, and competition.”
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 9: To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the
`Consolidated Complaint purport to characterize or describe documents or other sources, GMS
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`401 Union Street, Suite 3300
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2668
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GREYSTAR
`MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC’S
`ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`
`8 9
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 361 Filed 04/21/25 Page 9 of 142
`
`
`
`states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any characterization or description that
`is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. GMS further denies the characterization
`of the allegations. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 9 are directed to other Defendants
`and/or third parties to this action, GMS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`concerning the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies those allegations. GMS denies any
`remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 9 to the extent they purport to relate to GMS and require
`a response.
`
`10.
`
`RevenueIQ includes extensive benchmarking data that is collected from Yardi property
`management clients and then made available to RevenueIQ users in aggregated fashion.
`Through RevenueIQ, users obtain data on other specific properties that are similar in terms
`of location, quality, or property characteristics. Comparable properties may be either
`suggested by Yardi or selected by the user. The Revenue IQ user identifies a total of at least
`ten properties. At that point, the data from those competitor properties is presented in
`aggregated fashion to the Revenue IQ user. As stated in Yardi’s own interrogatory
`responses in this litigation, the benchmarking data that is presented to Revenue IQ users
`includes “actual leasing, operational, and financial data from Yardi property management
`clients.” Yardi acknowledges that the benchmarking data is used by Revenue IQ clients to
`understand how their properties “are performing financially and operationally as compared
`to comparable properties.” In short, Revenue IQ provides to users extensive confidential
`data from competitor properties alongside the pricing recommendations that Revenue IQ
`formulates. Notably, Yardi’s own interrogatory responses specify that this benchmarking
`information provided through Revenue IQ, based on confidential data from Yardi clients,
`“bears no relation” to the pricing surveys that Yardi also conducts and makes available for
`usage in Revenue IQ. Yardi’s Revenue IQ, therefore, incorporates and provides to users
`multiple types of competitor data: (1) confidential “benchmarking” information collected
`from Yardi users and (2) pricing information that Yardi meticulously collects through
`regular market surveys.
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 10: To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 10 purport to
`quote or characterize a defendant’s interrogatory responses, GMS states that such responses speak
`for themselves and denies any characterization or description that is inconsistent with the responses
`or taken out of context. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 10 are directed to other
`Defendants and/or third parties to this action, GMS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies those allegations. GMS
`denies any remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 10 to the extent they purport to relate to
`GMS and require a response.
`
`Yardi also operates Yardi Matrix, a commercial real estate intelligence source. Yardi
`Matrix actively collects data from Defendants and other multifamily operators related to
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`DEFENDANT GREYSTAR
`401 Union Street, Suite 3300
`MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC’S
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2668
`ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`+1 206 839 4300
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`11.
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`
`8 9
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 361 Filed 04/21/25 Page 10 of 142
`
`
`
`rental prices at multifamily properties across the entire nation. Subscribers to Yardi Matrix
`receive rental price information, as well as other data such as short and long-range forecasts
`of rent and occupancy at the market and sub-market levels. Yardi’s own interrogatory
`responses state that, “as of August 7, 2024, Yardi Matrix maintains property profiles for
`approximately 120,301 properties and 22,543,728 units. Yardi publicly advertises the
`extensive amount of data available through Yardi Matrix:
`
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 11: To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the
`Consolidated Complaint purport to characterize or describe documents or other sources, GMS
`states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any characterization or description that
`is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. GMS further denies the characterization
`of the allegations. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 11 purport to quote or characterize a
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`401 Union Street, Suite 3300
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2668
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GREYSTAR
`MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC’S
`ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`
`8 9
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 361 Filed 04/21/25 Page 11 of 142
`
`
`
`defendant’s interrogatory responses, GMS states that such responses speak for themselves and
`denies any characterization or description that is inconsistent with the responses or taken out of
`context. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 11 are directed to other Defendants and/or third
`parties to this action, GMS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning
`the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies those allegations. GMS denies any remaining
`factual allegations in Paragraph 11 to the extent they purport to relate to GMS and require a
`response.
`
`12.
`
`Yardi Matrix also conducts “rent surveys” multiple times annually to collect current pricing
`information about rental properties. As part of the rent survey, Yardi employees,
`masquerading as potential renters, call apartment community building to collect
`information about rents and current rent specials. Yardi itself has acknowledged that
`information Yardi collects from rent surveys is used in RENTmaximizer, stating that asking
`rent adjustments in RENTmaximizer are based, in part, on “public information collected
`through surveys.” Yardi’s public marketing for Matrix explicitly states that Matrix data is
`incorporated into RENTmaximizer.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`
`8 9
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 12: To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the
`Consolidated Complaint purport to characterize or describe documents or other sources, GMS
`states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any characterization or description that
`is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. GMS further denies the characterization
`of the allegations. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 12 are directed to other Defendants
`and/or third parties to this action, GMS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`concerning the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies those allegations. GMS denies any
`remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 12 to the extent they purport to relate to GMS and
`require a response.
`DEFENDANT GREYSTAR
`MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC’S
`ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`401 Union Street, Suite 3300
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2668
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 361 Filed 04/21/25 Page 12 of 142
`
`
`
`13.
`
`Yardi’s own interrogatory responses confirm the extensive, regular market surveys that
`Yardi conducts and then provides for usage in Revenue IQ. Yardi’s interrogatory responses
`state that “Yardi endeavors to collect asking rents for all apartment communities for which
`profiles have been established three times annually during a six-week period in
`January/February, May/June and September/October. These are referred to by Yardi as
`‘benchmark’ surveys.” Yardi’s interrogatory responses also describe additional surveys that
`Yardi conducts on a monthly basis, stating that “Stratified surveys are conducted monthly
`on a sample subset of properties in various markets, presently consisting of approximately
`12,000 to 13,500 properties. Stratified surveys typically take place over the course of five to
`eight days during the second week of each month. The purpose of stratified rent surveys is
`to identify market trends during intervals between the benchmark surveys.” And, Yardi also
`states that it “conducts ad hoc surveys from time to time to obtain information” related to
`property characteristics and current rents. The surveys collect extensive information
`including asking rents, whether and what types of specials are offered, non-rent specials,
`and lease term offerings.
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 13: To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 13 purport to
`quote or characterize a Defendant’s interrogatory responses, GMS states that such responses speak
`for themselves and denies any characterization or description that is inconsistent with the responses
`or taken out of context. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 13 are directed to other
`Defendants and/or third parties to this action, GMS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies those allegations. GMS
`denies any remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 13 to the extent they purport to relate to
`GMS and require a response.
`
`14.
`
`Defendants provide information to Yardi Matrix with the understanding that, in part, they
`will receive pricing recommendations from RENTmaximizer that are based on Yardi
`Matrix data. CW 6, a former Yardi employee, stated that all Yardi clients—or Voyager
`clients—contractually agree to share pricing and occupancy data with Yardi and to allow
`Yardi to use “aggregated data” as part of Matrix and RENTmaximizer. CW 6 stated that
`“when you sign your contract with them, you agree to give your data, aggregated.” CW 6
`stated that Yardi has “all the data from all of their properties inside Matrix” and that
`“somebody then buys that data in the form of RENTmaximizer.” Similarly, CW 7, who
`worked at Yardi between 2019 and 2021 as a senior account executive, explained that while
`Yardi’s clients were “very concerned about sharing their rental rates more than anything,”
`“[m]ost people appreciated the fact that if they shared data, they would get data from other
`clients using things like RENTmaximizer, so that everybody was benefitting from the data.”
`And Yardi’s own interrogatory responses state that “a landlord defendant using Revenue IQ
`may choose to use rents obtained by Matrix, as a source of data for its Revenue IQ comp
`trend, then the Matrix survey data for the chosen comp properties and floorplans are used in
`the average comp rent calculation.”
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 14: To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 14 purport to
`quote or characterize alleged witness statements, GMS lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`DEFENDANT GREYSTAR
`MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC’S
`ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`401 Union Street, Suite 3300
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2668
`+1 206 839 4300
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7
`
`8 9
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 361 Filed 04/21/25 Page 13 of 142
`
`
`
`to form a belief concerning whether the purported witness actually made the alleged statements
`and, therefore, denies the allegations. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 14 purport to quote
`or characterize a Defendant’s interrogatory responses, GMS states that such responses speak for
`themselves and denies any characterization or description that is inconsistent with the responses or
`taken out of context. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 14 are directed to other Defendants
`and/or third parties to this action, GMS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`concerning the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies those allegations. GMS denies any
`remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 14 to the extent they purport to relate to GMS and
`require a response.
`
`15.
`
`Yardi’s standard contractual agreement with Revenue IQ users provides Yardi with broad
`contractual rights to use the data of Revenue IQ users. In particular, the standard services
`agreement states that “Client acknowledges and agrees that Yardi may aggregate, compile,
`use, and disclose Client data provided to Yardi as part of the Services in order to improve,
`develop or enhance the Services; provided that no Client data is identifiable as originating
`from, or can be traced back to, Client or a Client customer in such aggregated form.” The
`services agreement also makes clear the importance of users providing data to Yardi, stating
`that “Client agrees to provide current and relevant data to Yardi regarding the
`properties/units/items for which Yardi provides Services. Client acknowledges that such
`data is necessary to Yardi’s pro