On November 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice and RealPage filed a proposed consent decree to settle the Department's August 2024 civil antitrust suit. The decree bars RealPage's revenue management products from using real-time, non-public competitor data for seven years — and from training new revenue-management models on competitor data less than a year old. If your operation is on OneSite, this changes your renewal calculus in ways your account team is not bringing up. Here is the contract-out window, what your legal team is actually going to ask, and the 14-day cutover.

Our biases, on the table. ExactEstate is one of the vendors a OneSite operator might evaluate. We do not run an algorithmic pricing product and have no commercial relationship with one. Below: the DOJ filing, the Wilson Sonsini analysis, and the migration playbook, sourced. Email corrections@exactestate.com with any factual fix.

What the November 2025 DOJ settlement actually restricts

The proposed consent decree, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, settles United States v. RealPage, Inc. (the August 2024 civil antitrust case). It does not resolve the parallel state-AG actions that have since joined, and it does not address class-action multi-district litigation pending in Tennessee. The decree itself is a federal-court order with teeth.

The substantive restrictions, in plain English:

• No real-time non-public competitor data. RealPage's revenue-management products may not ingest live competitor rent rolls, occupancy, or concessions data for seven years.
• No training on year-old non-public data. New revenue-management models cannot be trained on competitor data less than 365 days old.
• Mandatory training-data disclosure. RealPage must disclose to customers the data sources behind any pricing recommendation.
• Compliance monitor. An independent monitor reports to DOJ for five years.

Read the filing itself before quoting your legal team — the DOJ press release on the November 25, 2025 announcement is the primary source. Wilson Sonsini and MortgagePoint have published practitioner-grade analyses for general counsels evaluating exposure.

Why your OneSite contract has a window

RealPage operators almost always run a bundle: the OneSite property-management module, the YieldStar or AI Revenue Management module, and a marketing module. The DOJ decree directly impacts YieldStar and AIRM, which means OneSite operators who renew now are renewing a product whose flagship revenue-management capability is operating under federal-court constraints for the next seven years.

Most OneSite operators we've talked to in Q1–Q2 2026 have a material-change clause buried in their MSA that lets them re-open the contract when a vendor's product capability is materially restricted by a regulator or court. The DOJ consent decree is exactly that. If your legal team has not yet read your contract for the material-change clause, that's the first call to make.

The five questions your general counsel will ask

1. "What is our exposure if a future state AG or class action argues that using a price recommended by a now-restricted system was itself anticompetitive?" The federal decree is forward-looking, but multi-state actions and class actions reach backward. Boards are asking this because their D&O insurer is asking.
2. "Are we required to disclose our use of an algorithmic pricing system to renewing tenants in any of our jurisdictions?" New York, California, and Washington have moved on this in 2025–26. The answer is jurisdiction-dependent.
3. "What's the cost of moving off OneSite vs. staying through one more renewal cycle?" Quantify both sides. Don't let the answer be qualitative.
4. "What new compliance burdens does the consent decree's data-source disclosure rule put on us?" Even if RealPage absorbs the operational cost, you're still using the pricing output. Document your governance.
5. "Who is the named contact at RealPage for compliance-monitor inquiries about our portfolio?" Ask. Get a written answer.

ExactEstate's compliance posture, plainly stated

We do not run a revenue management product. We do not aggregate competitor data across operators. We do not share rent-roll data outside an operator's tenant. We do not surface "what your competitors are charging" recommendations in the rent-setting workflow.

That is not a feature we built; it is an architectural choice we made in 2023. Operators who want algorithmic rent setting can still build it — we expose rent data through APIs and customers integrate with whichever pricing tool they choose — but the data flows out of the operator's tenant only with explicit consent.

This is not a substitute for legal advice. It is a posture statement, sourced from our actual product. Your general counsel should evaluate it against your jurisdiction's antitrust enforcement priorities.

The OneSite migration: what's different from a Yardi migration

OneSite's data shape differs from Yardi's in three ways that matter for cutover:

• Resident records are deeply nested in lease records. Yardi tends to model the resident as a top-level entity; OneSite often models the resident as a child of the lease. We flatten this into ExactEstate's resident-first model during the mapping phase.
• Concessions and addenda are first-class. If you've been running OneSite for years, you have a history of concessions tied to leases that the migration needs to preserve, because the audit trail on rent calculations depends on it.
• Custom field naming follows OneSite conventions. We rename to ExactEstate's slug conventions during the mapping phase, not at runtime. The cleanup happens once.

The 14-day cadence (Day 1–3 export, Day 4–7 cleanse, Day 8–10 import + reconcile, Day 11–12 training, Day 13–14 cutover) holds for OneSite migrations the same way it holds for Yardi. Full timeline is in our Switch from Yardi PHA writeup.

Side-by-side: RealPage OneSite vs. ExactEstate

The honest cost comparison

A 1,400-unit affordable operator we worked with in Q4 2025 was paying RealPage roughly $50,000 a quarter for the OneSite + AIRM bundle. After the cutover, their ExactEstate bill is $1,500 a quarter at our $3-per-unit-per-month rate. The savings rebuilt their maintenance budget. We share the anonymized case because they asked to stay unnamed for procurement reasons; the dollar figures are verbatim.

Honest gaps in our pitch

We do not have OneSite's depth in conventional luxury multifamily — if your portfolio is 4–5 star apartment communities with sophisticated leasing tour automation, OneSite's leasing module is more mature than ours. Our pitch is affordable-housing operators, PHAs, LIHTC operators, mixed-portfolio operators where compliance depth matters more than tour-automation depth. We are also a smaller company than RealPage; if your procurement requires a Fortune 500 vendor, we are not that vendor.

One CTA, no upsell

If your legal team is reviewing the consent-decree exposure and you want a side-by-side cost comparison against your current OneSite SOW, book 5 minutes. We'll give you the numbers in writing.

Cross-references: HOTMA Vendor Scorecard for cross-vendor readiness; FTC warning letters analysis for the broader procurement-software risk picture.

Sources

• U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs press release dated November 25, 2025, announcing proposed consent decree in United States v. RealPage, Inc.
• Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati client alert, "DOJ-RealPage Consent Decree: What Multifamily Operators Need to Know," Nov-Dec 2025.
• MortgagePoint coverage, "DOJ Settles Antitrust Case Against RealPage," November 2025.
• Federal Register and HUD PIH Notice 2026-15 for HOTMA implementation references.
• NAHRO February 2026 announcement for NSPIRE-V Feb 1, 2027 mandatory compliance.

— The ExactEstate compliance team

From the HOTMA & PHA compliance cluster

• PHA software pricing benchmark
• HOTMA Jan 1 2027 implementation timeline
• EIV reconciliation — 15-day clock
• TRACS submission errors