An Act Prohibiting Residential Rental Property Owners From Using Pricing Algorithms And Competitors' Sensitive Data To Set Rental Prices.
HB 6947 would prohibit residential landlords and property owners in Connecticut from using pricing algorithms to set or recommend rents or occupancy rates for residential dwelling units. The bill also bars landlords and property owners from using competitors’ sensitive data to train or operate such algorithms, and it prohibits vendors from selling, licensing, or otherwise providing these tools for that purpose. The bill defines pricing algorithms broadly to include software that uses nonpublic market data such as actual rents, occupancy rates, and lease dates to advise on rent-setting decisions.
The measure would take effect July 1, 2025, and it would amend the state’s landlord-tenant definitions statute, Section 47a-1, to incorporate the new section into the chapter governing residential rental law. A violation would be treated as an unfair or deceptive trade practice under Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, which gives the state enforcement leverage and potentially exposes violators to civil remedies and penalties. In practical terms, the bill targets algorithmic rent-setting and data-sharing practices in the residential housing market, affecting landlords, property owners, software vendors, and potentially property management companies that rely on rent-optimization tools.
The bill would create a new statutory prohibition on algorithmic rent-setting in the residential rental market and tie violations to the state’s unfair trade practices law, expanding enforcement options beyond ordinary landlord-tenant remedies. It would also modify the definitions section of Connecticut’s landlord-tenant chapter to reference the new prohibition, integrating the rule into existing housing law. The primary affected parties are residential landlords, property owners, and companies that provide rent-pricing software or market analytics services.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text and statement of purpose, the measure appears to reflect concern about algorithmic rent inflation and the use of nonpublic competitor data in housing pricing. The overall framing is regulatory and consumer-protective, suggesting a policy intent to curb perceived anti-competitive practices in the rental market.
The main point of contention is likely whether pricing algorithms improve efficiency and market responsiveness or instead facilitate coordinated rent increases and reduced competition. Supporters would likely emphasize tenant protection, transparency, and anti-trust concerns, while opponents may argue the bill is overbroad, could capture legitimate property-management software, and may interfere with landlords’ ability to set rents using lawful market analytics. Another likely issue is the breadth of the definitions, especially the inclusion of anonymized or indirectly derived competitor data, which could raise compliance and enforcement questions for vendors and landlords.