Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 367 Filed 04/21/25 Page 1 of 124
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`In Re YARDI REVENUE MANAGEMENT
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`MCKENNA DUFFY and MICHAEL BRETT,
`individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated,
`
`
`v.
`
`YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Case No. 2:23-cv-01391-RSL
`
`DEFENDANT R.D. MERRILL REAL
`ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC’S ANSWER TO
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`Defendant R.D. Merrill Real Estate Holdings, LLC (“Pillar”), by and through its
`undersigned counsel of record, respectfully submits this Answer and provides additional and
`affirmative defenses in response to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Dkt. No. 226
`(the “Complaint”). Except to the extent specifically admitted herein, Pillar denies each and every
`allegation contained in the Complaint, including all allegations contained within the headings,
`footnotes, and figures in the Complaint. Any allegation, averment, contention, or statement in the
`Complaint not specifically and unequivocally admitted is denied. Pillar does not interpret the
`headings and subheadings throughout the Complaint as well-pleaded allegations of fact to which
`any response is required. To the extent a response is required, Pillar denies all allegations in the
`
`DEFENDANT PILLAR’S ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 1
`Case No. 2:23-CV-01391-RSL
`
`
`
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 FOURTH AVENUE
`SUITE 2900
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1158
`TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
`FACSIMILE: +1 206 623 7022
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 367 Filed 04/21/25 Page 2 of 124
`
`
`
`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
`
`headings and subheadings of the Complaint. By referring to or admitting the existence of any
`documents quoted, described, or otherwise referenced in the Complaint, Pillar does not
`acknowledge or concede that such documents are what they purport to be, are accurate as to their
`substance, constitute business records within the meaning of the rules of evidence, or are otherwise
`admissible on any other basis. Pillar’s use herein of defined terms in the Complaint should not be
`interpreted as, and is not, an admission that Pillar agrees with Plaintiffs’ characterization or use of
`the defined terms, that the defined terms are accurate, or that the documents or items described by
`the defined terms actually exist. Pillar uses these defined terms solely for the purposes of
`responding to the allegations in the Complaint. Unless otherwise stated, Pillar’s responses herein
`are based on facts available to it as of the date of this Answer. Pillar expressly reserves the right
`to seek to amend and/or supplement its Answer as may be necessary.
`Pillar denies the legal claims asserted in the Complaint and responds to each of the
`numbered paragraphs of the Complaint as follows:
`I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`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.”
`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. 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 purport to characterize or describe documents
`or other sources, Pillar states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context.
`
`DEFENDANT PILLAR’S ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 2
`Case No. 2:23-CV-01391-RSL
`
`
`
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 FOURTH AVENUE
`SUITE 2900
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1158
`TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
`FACSIMILE: +1 206 623 7022
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 367 Filed 04/21/25 Page 3 of 124
`
`
`
`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
`
`Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of any remaining
`allegations and therefore denies them on that basis.
`2.
`Unbeknownst to millions of Americans struggling to pay rent, Landlord Defendants
`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.” 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:
`Pillar specifically denies the existence of a “conspiracy.” To the extent the allegations in
`Paragraph 2 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies them on that basis. Pillar denies
`any remaining allegations.
`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 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:
`Pillar admits that, during the alleged relevant time period from September 8, 2019, to the
`present, it has managed multifamily rental properties only in Western Washington. To the extent
`the allegations in Paragraph 3 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge or
`
`DEFENDANT PILLAR’S ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 3
`Case No. 2:23-CV-01391-RSL
`
`
`
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 FOURTH AVENUE
`SUITE 2900
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1158
`TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
`FACSIMILE: +1 206 623 7022
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 367 Filed 04/21/25 Page 4 of 124
`
`
`
`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
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies them
`on that basis. Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of
`any remaining allegations and therefore denies them on that basis.
`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, Pillar lacks
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore
`denies them on that basis. Pillar denies any remaining 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”—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 maintaining occupancy, it simplifies the process by eliminating rent
`rate guesswork and traditional sales devices such as concessions and specials.”
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 5:
`To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 5 purport to characterize or describe documents
`or other sources, Pillar states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. To
`
`DEFENDANT PILLAR’S ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 4
`Case No. 2:23-CV-01391-RSL
`
`
`
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 FOURTH AVENUE
`SUITE 2900
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1158
`TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
`FACSIMILE: +1 206 623 7022
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 367 Filed 04/21/25 Page 5 of 124
`
`
`
`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
`
`the extent the allegations in Paragraph 5 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies
`them on that basis. Pillar denies any remaining allegations.
`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” and that Yardi users “beat the market by a minimum of 2%” and “gain[] on average
`more than 6% net rental income.” Yardi even tells its users: “You manage your business, we
`manage your pricing”: [screenshot omitted].
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 6:
`To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 6 purport to characterize or describe documents
`or other sources, Pillar states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. To
`the extent the allegations in Paragraph 6 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies
`them on that basis. Pillar denies any remaining allegations.
`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”:
`[screenshot omitted].
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 7:
`To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 7 purport to characterize or describe documents
`or other sources, Pillar states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. To
`the extent the allegations in Paragraph 7 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge
`
`DEFENDANT PILLAR’S ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 5
`Case No. 2:23-CV-01391-RSL
`
`
`
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 FOURTH AVENUE
`SUITE 2900
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1158
`TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
`FACSIMILE: +1 206 623 7022
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 367 Filed 04/21/25 Page 6 of 124
`
`
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies
`them on that basis. Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`of any remaining allegations and therefore denies them on that basis.
`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”—or what it also calls “complete visibility,” including
`“performance benchmarking” “compared to the market, submarket, and competition”: [screenshot
`omitted].
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 8:
`To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 8 purport to characterize or describe documents
`or other sources, Pillar states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. To
`the extent the allegations in Paragraph 8 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies
`them on that basis. Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`of any remaining allegations and therefore denies them on that basis.
`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
`[screenshot omitted] intelligence from rental rates and occupancy to property performance
`benchmarks compared to the market, submarket, and competition.”
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT PILLAR’S ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 6
`Case No. 2:23-CV-01391-RSL
`
`
`
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 FOURTH AVENUE
`SUITE 2900
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1158
`TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
`FACSIMILE: +1 206 623 7022
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 367 Filed 04/21/25 Page 7 of 124
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 9:
`To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 9 purport to characterize or describe documents
`or other sources, Pillar states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. To
`the extent the allegations in Paragraph 9 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies
`them on that basis. Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`of any remaining allegations and therefore denies them on that basis.
`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
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT PILLAR’S ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 7
`Case No. 2:23-CV-01391-RSL
`
`
`
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 FOURTH AVENUE
`SUITE 2900
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1158
`TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
`FACSIMILE: +1 206 623 7022
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 367 Filed 04/21/25 Page 8 of 124
`
`
`
`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
`
`“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 characterize or describe documents
`or other sources, Pillar states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. To
`the extent the allegations in Paragraph 10 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies
`them on that basis. Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`of any remaining allegations and therefore denies them on that basis.
`11.
`Yardi also operates Yardi Matrix, a commercial real estate intelligence source.
`Yardi Matrix actively collects data from Defendants and other multifamily operators related to
`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: [screenshot omitted].
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 11:
`To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 11 purport to characterize or describe documents
`or other sources, Pillar states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. To
`the extent the allegations in Paragraph 11 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies
`them on that basis. Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`of any remaining allegations and therefore denies them on that basis.
`
`DEFENDANT PILLAR’S ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 8
`Case No. 2:23-CV-01391-RSL
`
`
`
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 FOURTH AVENUE
`SUITE 2900
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1158
`TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
`FACSIMILE: +1 206 623 7022
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 367 Filed 04/21/25 Page 9 of 124
`
`
`
`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
`
`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: [screenshot
`omitted].
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 12:
`To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 12 purport to characterize or describe documents
`or other sources, Pillar states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. To
`the extent the allegations in Paragraph 12 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies
`them on that basis. Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`of any remaining allegations and therefore denies them on that basis.
`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
`
`DEFENDANT PILLAR’S ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 9
`Case No. 2:23-CV-01391-RSL
`
`
`
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 FOURTH AVENUE
`SUITE 2900
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1158
`TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
`FACSIMILE: +1 206 623 7022
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 367 Filed 04/21/25 Page 10 of 124
`
`
`
`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,
`nonrent specials, and lease term offerings.
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 13:
`To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 13 purport to characterize or describe documents
`or other sources, Pillar states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. To
`the extent the allegations in Paragraph 13 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies
`them on that basis. Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`of any remaining allegations and therefore denies them on that basis.
`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
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT PILLAR’S ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 10
`Case No. 2:23-CV-01391-RSL
`
`
`
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 FOURTH AVENUE
`SUITE 2900
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1158
`TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
`FACSIMILE: +1 206 623 7022
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 367 Filed 04/21/25 Page 11 of 124
`
`
`
`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 characterize or describe
`unidentified sources, Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`truth of the allegations and therefore denies them on that basis. To the extent the allegations in
`Paragraph 14 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies them on that basis. Pillar denies
`any remaining allegations.
`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 provision of the Services.”
`Yardi’s own interrogatory responses confirm that this language giving Yardi broad access to the
`data of Revenue IQ users has been present throughout the relevant period, with Yardi stating that
`“Yardi is not aware of any contractual language pertaining to the use or non-use of aggregated data
`that might apply to Yardi customers using Revenue IQ during the Relevant Time Period that differs
`from the language in the templates already produced to Plaintiffs.” And Yardi also stated that it is
`not aware of any user of Revenue IQ that has not agreed to this contractual language.
`
`DEFENDANT PILLAR’S ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 11
`Case No. 2:23-CV-01391-RSL
`
`
`
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 FOURTH AVENUE
`SUITE 2900
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1158
`TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
`FACSIMILE: +1 206 623 7022
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 367 Filed 04/21/25 Page 12 of 124
`
`
`
`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
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 15:
`To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 15 purport to characterize or describe documents
`or other sources, Pillar states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. To
`the extent the allegations in Paragraph 15 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies
`them on that basis. Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`of any remaining allegations and therefore denies them on that basis.
`16.
`Leveraging data gathered from RENTmaximizer users as well as comparative rent,
`RENTmaximizer’s rental pricing algorithm then calculates a “rent recommendation” that users
`can—and are encouraged to—automatically adopt. These prices are updated “daily.” Yardi also
`advertises (as noted above) that it gives lessors “complete visibility” into the market, providing
`them with “property performance benchmarking (compared to the market, submarket and
`competition)”: [screenshot omitted].
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 16:
`To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 16 purport to characterize or describe documents
`or other sources, Pillar states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. To
`the extent the allegations in Paragraph 16 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies
`them on that basis. Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`of any remaining allegations and therefore denies them on that basis.
`17.
`Furthermore, Yardi provides RENTmaximizer users “with a dedicated revenue
`manager” who works closely with individual lessors to hone their usage of RENTmaximizer by
`“get[ting] to know your business processes, assets, and goals to provide superior support and . . .
`work[ing] with you to maximize your returns.” Promotional materials for Yardi’s “Revenue IQ”
`
`DEFENDANT PILLAR’S ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 12
`Case No. 2:23-CV-01391-RSL
`
`
`
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 FOURTH AVENUE
`SUITE 2900
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-1158
`TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
`FACSIMILE: +1 206 623 7022
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01391-RSL Document 367 Filed 04/21/25 Page 13 of 124
`
`
`
`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
`
`product similarly advertise the assistance of “dedicated Yardi expert[s]” who “help manage
`pricing” and assist lessors in “[g]et[ting] pricing recommendations and control[ling] pricing at the
`property level”: [screenshot omitted].
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 17:
`To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 17 purport to characterize or describe documents
`or other sources, Pillar states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. To
`the extent the allegations in Paragraph 17 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledge
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies
`them on that basis. Pillar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`of any remaining allegations and therefore denies them on that basis.
`18.
`Yardi emphasizes to prospective clients that Yardi’s RENTmaximizer/Revenue IQ
`project will manage pricing for clients who purchase the software. For example, in one non-public
`2023 presentation to a prospective client, Yardi stated, “[y]ou manage your business; we manage
`pricing,” while emphasizing at the same time the availability of a “dedicated, experienced revenue
`manager” who would work with the client along with the software [screenshot omitted].
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH 18:
`To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 18 purport to characterize or describe documents
`or other sources, Pillar states that such documents speak for themselves and denies any
`characterization or description that is inconsistent with the documents or taken out of context. To
`the extent the allegations in Paragraph 18 are directed to other Defendants, Pillar lacks knowledg