Carbon Dioxide Capture, Removal, and Sequestration Projects - Regulations and Standards for Biochar and Wood Vault Technologies
HB0817 prohibits landlords from using certain algorithmic devices to set rent for residential leases in Maryland. The bill defines an “algorithmic device” broadly as a tool that uses algorithms and data, including local or statewide rent information, to advise a landlord on what rent to charge, but it excludes monthly aggregated trade-association reports and tools used to set rents or income limits under affordable housing programs.
The bill specifically bars landlords from employing, using, or relying on an algorithmic device that uses, incorporates, or was trained with nonpublic competitor data when determining initial rent or rent increases for lease renewals. It also defines “nonpublic competitor data” to include information such as actual rent prices, occupancy rates, and lease start and end dates. A violation is treated as an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, making it enforceable under Title 13’s penalty and enforcement provisions. The act applies prospectively only and does not affect rent calculations under leases executed before its effective date of October 1, 2025.
HB0817 amends the Commercial Law Article to add a new unfair trade practice tied to a new Real Property Article section, and it creates Section 8-220 governing landlord use of algorithmic rent-setting tools. The bill affects residential landlords and property managers by restricting the use of rent-pricing software that relies on nonpublic competitor data, while preserving the use of certain aggregated market reports and affordable-housing compliance tools. It also gives the Attorney General and other enforcement mechanisms under the Consumer Protection Act a basis to pursue violations as deceptive trade practices.
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received in the House, passing third reading by a wide margin of 107-21. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate detailed support or opposition arguments. The strong vote implies broad concern about algorithmic rent-setting practices and a willingness to regulate them.
The main point of contention is likely the scope of the prohibition on algorithmic rent-setting tools, especially whether the bill could limit landlords’ access to market analytics or software used in competitive pricing. Supporters would view the measure as a consumer-protection and anti-collusion safeguard, while opponents may argue it could interfere with legitimate business tools, reduce pricing efficiency, or create compliance uncertainty around what counts as “nonpublic competitor data” or an “algorithmic device.” The bill’s exceptions for aggregated trade-association reports and affordable housing tools appear designed to address some of those concerns.