A Democratic bill with 11 Democratic cosponsors · See all 12 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is cited as the End Rent Fixing Act of 2025. It is designed to prohibit the manipulation of rent prices in the United States. The legislation makes it unlawful for rental property owners to contract with coordinators that collect and analyze pricing and supply data to recommend rental prices or occupancy levels. Additionally, it prohibits any person from performing those coordinating functions. The bill outlines enforcement powers for the Federal Trade Commission, the Attorney General, and State attorneys general. Finally, it allows aggrieved persons to bring civil actions to recover threefold damages.
Yes· 3 of 25
- Scored +8
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill enhances consumer protections by banning algorithmic rent coordination and allowing injured individuals to recover threefold damages.
- Scored +7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Low-income households face severe housing cost burdens and benefit greatly from policies preventing rent price inflation.
- Scored +7
Does this make housing cost less?
By prohibiting coordinated rent manipulation and algorithmic pricing, the legislation aims to make housing and rental prices more affordable.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Rental property owners and software coordinators face strict prohibitions and heavy liability for using rent coordination tools.
- Scored -2
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
High-net-worth individuals or institutional investors who own large residential rental portfolios face restrictions on pricing optimization tools.
- Scored -2
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Large-scale real estate investors and corporate landlords are restricted from utilizing centralized algorithmic pricing coordinators.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3 makes it unlawful for a rental property owner to subscribe to, contract with, or exchange anything of value for the services of a coordinator, and makes it unlawful for any person to perform a coordinating function. This is positive because it stops the collection and sharing of sensitive rental data used to predict and recommend rental prices or occupancy levels.
-
Section 4(b) allows any person who is aggrieved by a violation of the Act to bring a civil action in a United States district court. This is positive because it gives everyday people the power to fight back against unlawful rent-fixing practices in court.
-
Section 4(b)(2) requires the court to award a successful plaintiff threefold the damages sustained along with reasonable litigation costs and attorney fees. This is positive because it provides a strong financial recovery for individuals harmed by these unfair practices.
-
Section 4(b)(3) states that pre-dispute arbitration agreements and pre-dispute joint action waivers are invalid or unenforceable at the election of the plaintiff. This is positive because it ensures people cannot be forced out of court and into arbitration when dealing with rent manipulation violations.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The provided text does not contain any specific sections or provisions that explicitly outline negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households face severe housing cost burdens and benefit greatly from policies preventing rent price inflation. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class renters gain stronger legal protections and relief from coordinated rent-fixing practices. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban areas, where algorithmic rent-setting software is most prevalent, see direct relief from anti-competitive practices. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults, who rent at higher rates than older demographics, benefit significantly from measures preventing artificially inflated rents. Would children be better off under this? — Stable and more affordable housing costs directly benefit families with children. Would students be better off under this? — College students and recent graduates renting off-campus housing benefit from restrained rental prices. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged renters and families experience financial relief from lowered risks of collusive rent spikes. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees living on fixed pensions or social security benefit from protection against runaway rental price growth. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Fixed-income seniors renting their homes are protected from sudden, algorithm-driven rent increases. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Communities of color, disproportionately impacted by high housing costs, benefit from increased rental affordability and market fairness. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Hispanic renters experiencing high housing cost burdens benefit from measures preventing coordinated rent inflation. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans who rent housing benefit from increased price stability and protections against inflated rental costs. Would women be better off under this? — Single mothers and women renting homes benefit from enhanced affordability and protections against unfair rental practices. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrant communities relying heavily on rental housing gain protections from abusive pricing coordination. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Individuals with disabilities on fixed incomes are better shielded from sudden rent increases. Would business owners be better off under this? — Rental property owners and software coordinators face strict prohibitions and heavy liability for using rent coordination tools. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Major corporate entities and billionaires invested in residential real estate tech and large rental portfolios face increased regulatory scrutiny and liability. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — High-net-worth individuals or institutional investors who own large residential rental portfolios face restrictions on pricing optimization tools. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Large-scale real estate investors and corporate landlords are restricted from utilizing centralized algorithmic pricing coordinators.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill invalidates pre-dispute arbitration agreements and joint action waivers, giving tenants direct access to federal court. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal enforcement authority through the FTC and the Department of Justice over rental pricing coordination. Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — The bill addresses anti-competitive practices affecting rental housing markets across state lines. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The legislation explicitly preserves state antitrust laws and allows state attorneys general to enforce the provisions.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill enhances consumer protections by banning algorithmic rent coordination and allowing injured individuals to recover threefold damages. Is this likely to slow the rise in prices? — By prohibiting algorithmic rent-fixing and artificial inflation of housing costs, the bill may help moderate rental price growth.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — By prohibiting coordinated rent manipulation and algorithmic pricing, the legislation aims to make housing and rental prices more affordable. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Lowering or preventing artificially inflated rents helps reduce housing cost burdens for low-income households. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Preventing artificial spikes in rental prices supports housing stability and helps mitigate risk factors leading to homelessness.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — The bill heavily regulates software and algorithmic tools used by property management coordinators to set rent prices.
- 7/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/19/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 11 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
John FettermanDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Kirsten GillibrandDemocrat · New York
Amy KlobucharDemocrat · Minnesota
Andy KimDemocrat · New Jersey
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Jeanne ShaheenDemocrat · New Hampshire
Tina SmithDemocrat · Minnesota
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island