A BILL to amend and reenact § 55.1-1200 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 55.1-1204.2, relating to Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act; algorithmic pricing device use by certain landlords; civil penalties.
HB1252 amends the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act to regulate the use of algorithmic pricing devices by larger landlords. The bill defines an “algorithmic pricing device” broadly to include automated systems that use algorithms, machine learning, predictive analytics, or similar methods to generate or influence rental prices or rent increases. It also updates the Act’s definitions section to add that term and related concepts used throughout landlord-tenant law.
The bill applies only to landlords who own more than 10 rental dwelling units, or more than a 10 percent interest in more than 10 rental dwelling units, in Virginia. Covered landlords would have to disclose in writing when an algorithmic pricing device was used to set advertised rent, renewal rent, or an offer to a prospective tenant, identify the software or service used, and provide a plain-language summary of the general factors considered by the tool upon request. Tenants or prospective tenants could also request a human review of a rent determination or renewal increase generated or recommended by such a device. The bill prohibits misrepresenting use of the technology, labeling algorithmically generated rent as nonnegotiable solely for that reason, and using the device in a deceptive or misleading way.
If a landlord violates the new section, the Attorney General may bring an action on behalf of the Commonwealth, seek an injunction, and obtain civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. The bill expressly does not create a private right of action, does not require landlords to keep records beyond ordinary business records, does not impose reporting or regulatory duties on the Department of Housing and Community Development, and does not place obligations on software vendors or third-party platforms.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to add a new consumer-protection-style disclosure and enforcement framework within Virginia landlord-tenant law for algorithmic rent-setting practices. It would affect larger landlords most directly, while leaving smaller landlords outside the new requirements. It also preserves trade secret protections by allowing landlords to withhold proprietary formulas, source code, and input weighting while still providing a general explanation of how the pricing tool works.
The available legislative history suggests the bill was not opposed strongly enough to generate recorded debate or votes in the materials provided, but it was continued to the next session in the House General Laws process by voice vote. That procedural outcome indicates the bill did not advance in the current session. The main policy tension apparent from the text is between tenant transparency and oversight on one side, and landlord/vendor concerns about proprietary business information and administrative burden on the other. The bill attempts to balance those interests by requiring disclosure and human review while limiting access to trade secrets and avoiding direct regulation of software vendors.
HB1252 would amend § 55.1-1200 and add new § 55.1-1204.2 to the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, creating a new disclosure and enforcement regime for algorithmic rent-setting tools used by larger landlords. It would require written disclosure, allow requests for a plain-language explanation and human review, and authorize Attorney General enforcement with civil penalties, while expressly limiting private lawsuits and avoiding new obligations for vendors or state agencies.
The bill appears to have been treated as a consumer-protection measure aimed at increasing transparency in rental pricing, with no recorded committee debate or roll-call vote in the provided materials. Its continuation to the next session by voice vote suggests it did not face a decisive recorded floor or committee confrontation, but also did not secure enough momentum to advance. Overall, the tone of the proposal is cautious and regulatory rather than punitive, reflecting an effort to address concerns about automated rent-setting without banning the technology outright.
The main point of contention is likely the use of algorithmic pricing in housing: tenant advocates would favor disclosure, human review, and limits on deceptive pricing, while landlords and software providers may object to revealing too much about pricing methods or to the operational burden of compliance. The bill explicitly tries to address those concerns by exempting proprietary formulas, source code, and weighting of inputs from disclosure, and by stating that it does not impose duties on software vendors or create a private right of action. Another likely issue is the bill’s scope, since it applies only to landlords with more than 10 units or a significant interest in more than 10 units, leaving smaller landlords outside the new rules.