Price fixing by algorithm is still price fixing
www.ftc.gov
Landlords and property managers can’t collude on rental pricing. Using new technology to do it doesn’t change that antitrust fundamental. Regardless of the industry you’re in, if your business uses an algorithm to determine prices, a brief filed by the FTC and the Department of Justice offers a helpful guideline for antitrust compliance: your algorithm can’t do anything that would be illegal if done by a real person.
    • Wooster@startrek.websiteEnglish
      48·
      9 months ago

      I just read the joint legal brief, and, I have to say up front that I am not remotely a lawyer… but the document specifies how and where to identify price fixing, and that motions to dismiss those charges are to be dismissed.

      So it doesn’t dictate the penalties for price fixing (I assume that’s on a trial by trial basis—but again, not a lawyer), but it makes it impossible(?) to ignore, and suggests that (to me), users of ‘RENTMaximizer’ will be in the crosshairs… while not actually stating that.

        • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
          7·
          9 months ago

          There will be an investigation into the algorithms you use to estimate optimism, to make sure you do not collude with Hopelords to inflate optimism quotients and rob hopees through conspiracy. Do not resist.

        • Wooster@startrek.websiteEnglish
          5·
          9 months ago

          Mm… again not a lawyer, but I think that question goes beyond the scope of the document.

          It basically gives the government permission to hold renters accountable for using software to artificially raise prices. What form that accountability takes is not addressed. Either that’s covered under existing collusion laws or is up to the courts.

          So, it’s an essential ingredient to the cake that you’re describing… but unless prosecution (or whatever the term actually is) brings that up (I assume?), it won’t happen.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        51·
        9 months ago

        Lots of people act like justice never comes from the Federal government to corporations, as if FaceBook isn’t paying Billions in FTC fines for the next 2 decades. Punishments get dolled out all the time, but nobody talks about it.

        • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
          4·
          9 months ago

          Why would people care? Even if we assume the fine isn’t so trivial it’s just a cost of doing business people don’t get that money nor does the federal government turn around and say “Good news everyone this means we can afford universal healthcare now!”

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            31·
            9 months ago

            Even if it’s not as good as a criminal prosecution, it definitely does a lot to keep for profit companies in line. Without these various fines and rulings, the world would be a much worse place.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              9 months ago

              Even if it’s not as good as a criminal prosecution, it definitely does a lot to keep for profit companies in line.

              Does it? Because gestures broadly at the entire economy.

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                21·
                9 months ago

                Let us look at an example where this sort of regulation was in place, and then went away:

                In March 2014, Abbott lobbied to delay implementations of and even remove FDA Regulations on baby formula which would require more frequent inspections (and therefor fines), citing that the company was already morally and monetarily incentivized to control the quality of product without the need of oversight.

                Abbott Baby Formula facility in Sturgis, Michigan, was linked to the infection of 5 infants and death of 2 infants, and revealed to have shipped untested batches of formula with falsified reports from management. This lead to the inevitable shutdown of the entire facility and following nationwide shortage of infant formula.

                So, yes, fining companies to keep them in line is working when the alternative is that the unchecked corporations do things so catastrophically stupid that they run their own businesses into the ground.

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  21·
                  9 months ago

                  So, yes, fining companies to keep them in line is working when the alternative is that the unchecked corporations do things so catastrophically stupid that they run their own businesses into the ground.

                  I submit that such circumstances are rare, and that the usual case is that fines are a tiny fraction of the money companies being in by breaking the law.

      • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
        281·
        9 months ago

        That type of direct agreement is not necessary to prove collusion (makes it easier to prosecute certainly) but intent doesn’t matter legally. Using a software that has an inbuilt collusion algorithm is still collusion. This is also on a larger scale than mom+pop these algorithms and software were/are used by much larger companies that own magnitudes more units.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        241·
        9 months ago

        Their stance is “if it’s illegal for a person to do it, it’s illegal for an algorithm to do it”

        If you use a 3rd party to collude, that’s still collusion. Here, that algorithm is the third party

      • Wooster@startrek.websiteEnglish
        161·
        9 months ago

        The joint legal brief clarifies that it is indeed collusion. And continues to explain how this is a technological evolution of the handshake.

  • GrymEdm@lemmy.world
    38·
    9 months ago

    Society shouldn’t be set up to keep people renting for their entire lives. It was like 3 generations ago that you could realistically get a home in your 30’s on a single paycheck.

    • DABDA@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      9 months ago

      Can’t speak for the veracity, but I’ve got two magnets with the following:

      1934

      Average income = $1,601.00
      Loaf of bread = $.08
      Gallon of gas = $.10
      Gallon of milk = $.45

      New car = $625.00
      New house = $5,972.00

      1958

      Average income = $4,650.00
      Loaf of bread = $.19
      Gallon of gas = $.24
      Gallon of milk = $1.01

      New car = $2,155.00
      New house = $11,975.00

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        4·
        9 months ago

        Interesting that pay tripled, staples like food and gas doubled, and the price of a car quadrupled in that time. Houses also dropped from 4x pay to 2.5x pay

    • harderian729@lemmy.world
      546·
      9 months ago

      You still can, you just need to leave major cities.

      Unfortunately, entitlement goes both ways for renters and landlords. They think they’re entitled to maximize profit, you think you’re entitled to live in places you can’t afford.

      Just unchecked greed all around, and the real people who suffer are the ones living in areas “not good enough” for you. But hey, you should get more before them, right?

      Edit to all the downvoters: wake me up when somebody else solves your problems for you. I can wait.

      • _number8_@lemmy.worldEnglish
        313·
        9 months ago

        i really wish we could mute words on here, because anyone throwing around the word ‘entitled’ definitely has sinister motives at best

        yes, people are ENTITLED to a place to live without being gouged their whole lives.

        • harderian729@lemmy.world
          526·
          9 months ago

          people are ENTITLED to a place to live without being gouged their whole lives.

          And these people have options to avoid that. The problem is, they refuse to take them because they feel they are entitled to live in places they can barely afford.

          Why do you people always replace arguments with your own misunderstandings as though you have a point? I think it’s because you spend too much time on these forums and lose touch with what makes an effective argument.

          Here, all that matters is that people agree with you. Being correct or logical is irrelevant.

          • Drusas@kbin.social
            2·
            9 months ago

            They refuse to take those options because it would involve the massive hassle and expense of moving to a place where they are not from, do not know anybody, do not like, and which has terrible public services.

            Wanting to live a good life is not entitled.

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            42·
            9 months ago

            So let me get this straight. You say people in rural areas have it the worst, yet also claim that people should leave the cities and move to rural areas where “nobody wants to live” in order to gain a better life? You’ll have to explain that logic.

            • harderian729@lemmy.world
              26·
              9 months ago

              Sure! No problem. I can tell reason and rhetoric is not your strong suit!

              You see, if we agree that people living in rural America have it worse than those in urban America, then why should those in urban America get more before those in rural America? If they can’t afford it, especially. Why should they get more before those who have less?

              Textbook entitlement. And you all pretend not to understand it because you’re in on it.

              Have fun waiting for someone else to solve your problems for you.

              • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
                21·
                9 months ago

                So you’re just going to pretend that you weren’t making a completely different nonsensical argument a couple comments ago?

                You want to speak about entitlement while demanding that Person A should receive aid before Person B when nobody was even talking about that to begin with?

                Textbook projection.

      • SMillerNL@lemmy.world
        101·
        9 months ago

        “Places you can’t afford”, like teachers and nurses wanting to live in the same county as their place of employment?

        • harderian729@lemmy.world
          16·
          9 months ago

          You can do that outside of major cities.

          You should get more life experience before thinking you have a point.

          • SMillerNL@lemmy.world
            21·
            9 months ago

            You could, and then we just let the people in cities be dumb and not have healthcare? Or we segregate the rich people into the cities and poor into the rest of the world?

            • harderian729@lemmy.world
              13·
              9 months ago

              Holy crap, I’m not even going indulge that.

              Just keep believing what you want and living in your fantasy world. You have no shortage of losers willing to join you.

      • hobovision@lemm.ee
        72·
        9 months ago

        Sorry homie the cities have the jobs. People need to be able to afford to live near where they work for our economy to function well. They need to be able to buy stuff to support other jobs nearby. It’s a virtuous cycle when it works, but housing costs sap that money away.

      • Drusas@kbin.social
        1·
        9 months ago

        Wanting to live where there are jobs, grocery stores, and health care facilities within a reasonable distance is not entitlement.

        Or maybe they can’t afford your suggestion. Do you have any idea how much it costs to move across the US? I’ve done it a few times and I can assure you that it’s not cheap.

      • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
        11·
        9 months ago

        They think they’re entitled to maximize profit, you think you’re entitled to live…

        See, this is what’s called a false dichotomy, and this glaring failure in your argument is why you’re downvoted. (At least that’s why i did).

        I do. I think I’m entitled to live. Yes i cut off the part where you said “where you can’t afford” because someone besides you and me (yes, you, you aren’t a capitalist, you are a wage slave just like me mayne) controls that, don’t they?

        Housing is a human right, and even if you don’t believe that, it sure is a requirement for a person to work and live. Without shelter in these expensive places you describe, no one can do the labor required for the local economy in these places to thrive.

        So you have an answer for this? Frankly, i don’t expect much, but id like to be surprised. Can you defend adding “where you can’t afford” as anything other than words making your inhumane statement more palatable?

          • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
            21·
            9 months ago

            No joke, you will never admit your contribution to the problem. You are simply incapable of it and I’ve come across many…

            Mmmmm that’s good stuff. Yea! Yeah! Talk down to me baby!

            But I asked your to defend a specific statement and you just repeated your ad hominems from your other replies. Are you gonna engage with me or should i expect another copy pasta ya picked up from the boob tube?

            I know you won’t respond to my question this time either, so Please hit me with a new ad hominem, make it something i haven’t seen? I would have you try harder