Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY
/
Regulators Should Proceed with Caution on Algorithmic AI
Regulators Should Proceed with Caution on Algorithmic AI
Jul 18, 2025 7:45 PM

  New technologies, new paradigms, and the use of artificial intelligence have made the job of regulators in the antitrust arena more difficult. These challenges require expertise at the intersection of antitrust and technology risk to avoid leading regulators astray from promoting competition, which is the fundamental purpose of antitrust laws.

  Those issues have come to a head in many unexpected areas.Following the COVID-19 pandemic, rents began to skyrocket, increasing over 14 percent in 2022 alone. Some states saw increases of over 20 percent. The Biden administration announced a nationwide effort to “lower housing costs.” While rent control schemes drew the biggest headlines, antitrust enforcers also decided to take action in the housing and rental market.

  The Department of Justices Antitrust Division recently reported that they opened a criminal investigation into RealPage—a property management company—and the property owners who use RealPage’s algorithm-based software designed to help determine ideal rental price-points. This raises serious questions about how the nation’s antitrust cops view technology-based market innovations. This criminal investigation follows at least three statements of interest filed by the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission in the past year supporting private class action plaintiffs bringing civil claims that pricing algorithms amounted to illegal collusion. The FTC now seems to be turning its interest to algorithmically-driven dynamic pricing, or the practice of adjusting prices based on demand and other factors to make personalized price offers.

  The development of AI has become a Rorschach test for politicians and policymakers. Some see it as positive, a sign of advancing technology coupled with the belief it will benefit human progress. Others see something more sinister: fear of the unknown, concerns about the concentration of power in certain corners of the tech industry, or simply the desire for government involvement and regulations as the technology is in its infancy. These debates have morphed into accusations that AI will lead to economic inequity and anticompetitive behavior.

  Perhaps these fears have led to current regulatory pushes. By itself, the use of AI algorithms does not necessarily reduce competition, nor is it the type of price fixing or other collusive behavior that antitrust laws typically prohibit. Software companies in the property management industry gather and analyze data points on current market conditions and use a proprietary algorithm to suggest an optimal rental price to the user. The property owner is free to accept or reject the proposed price, and of course, a renter is not obligated to accept the price.

  Property owners—like nearly all retail businesses—have collected and analyzed data from the earliest days of commerce.The utilization of mathematical or algorithmic models to do what was once done using pen and paper is also not a new phenomenon. Since at least the 1980s, airlines have used dynamic pricing models to set fares based on demand, time, and availability. These strategies were adopted as a consequence of deregulation and low-cost competitors, and made air travel more competitive for consumers. More recently, hotels and ride-hailing apps have employed differential pricing.The private sector is not alone in adopting such pricing structures. In many urban areas, including in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC, government-operated toll roads employ “congestion pricing,” which sets toll costs based on supply and demand.

  If not careful, the DOJ and FTC risk misapplying antitrust laws by bringing actions against dynamic pricing models that are otherwise normal. Even if chalked up to the growing calls to move away from the consumer welfare standard (which ensures that antitrust enforcement actions come from concern over consumer harms, and not other improper considerations), the antitrust regulators appear to be taking issue with the fact that artificial intelligence allows larger amounts of data to be analyzed faster and more efficiently. But that does not necessarily imply an antitrust violation. To plausibly claim an antitrust violation, the Sherman Act requires three elements: 1) a contract or conspiracy among two or more entities; 2) that unreasonably restrains trade; and 3) affects interstate commerce.

  When done properly, algorithmic AI technology should be seen as a shift towards smarter, more efficient market mechanisms, not as a tool of anti-competitive behavior.

  Using AI software to examine data and market forces to suggest pricing does not imply the users of the software have entered into an agreement, contract, or conspiracy to fix prices. Far from being anticompetitive, algorithmic pricing represents a natural evolution of market efficiency and innovation. By automating price optimization, software companies empower their users to adapt to market changes swiftly, fostering greater transparency and efficiency.

  Although AI represents new frontiers, the classic antitrust cases may provide answers for why current fears are overblown.Nearly one hundred years ago, as mass retail of consumer goods took the nation by storm, the Supreme Court found in United States v. Colgate that a manufacturer’s announcement of a resale price without coercion is not a violation of antitrust laws. Users of this property management AI software (and similar software companies in other sectors) are similarly not forced, coerced, or pressured to use its suggestive pricing structure.

  More recently, in Ohio v. American Express, with credit cards replacing cash transactions (often to the understandable ire of some merchants) the Supreme Court emphasized the need to consider the broader market context, suggesting that superficial analyses of technological impacts can lead to flawed antitrust conclusions. The court held that an “anticompetitive effect” must not merely bring negative impacts on one component of a market but also prove harmful to the competitive process. The DOJ and FTC would be well-served to remember this today.

  In its statement of interest in a rent-pricing antitrust case, the DOJ stated that “given the amount of information an algorithm can access and digest, this new frontier poses an even greater anti-competitive threat than the last.” But hotels, airlines, car rental companies, and even government agencies routinely utilize similar algorithms to optimize prices. The government fails to explain what is fundamentally different here and why the property managers’ utilization of algorithmic software warrants antitrust intervention.

  The stakes are high here. If the DOJ and FTC’s probes gain traction, will a cottage industry of lawsuits against similar AI software systems in other politically sensitive sectors quickly arise?

  Misguided action from the FTC and DOJ on this case risks setting a worrying precedent that could discourage innovation in other sectors where algorithmic pricing is prevalent. If the mere use of such technology invites antitrust scrutiny, companies across various industries may hesitate to adopt or develop similar solutions, fearing regulatory reprisal and burdensome litigation. This could impede progress and limit the potential benefits that algorithmic pricing can offer consumers and businesses, hindering the growth of a dynamic and competitive market.

  Rather than constraining these companies out of fear, the DOJ and FTC should encourage healthy competition and innovation through implementing clear, predictable regulatory frameworks. Doing so will allow businesses to understand the rules of the game.

  The DOJ and FTC should also continue to focus on hiring attorneys with STEM degrees and broad tech policy experience. Making these hires will reassure the public that the government is focusing its antitrust efforts on truly bad actors—not on those who merely employ new ways of conducting established business. Consumers will continue to benefit from these advancements in innovation while remaining safeguarded against genuine anti-competitive behavior that may arise from future companies that use this nascent technology.

  When done properly, algorithmic AI technology should be seen as a shift towards smarter, more efficient market mechanisms, not as a tool of anti-competitive behavior. It would be a shame to see the DOJ and FTC act in a manner, even if well-intentioned or beneficial in the short term, that impedes the growth of these markets for the decades to come.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY
Arvo Pärt and the universal soul of music
Sacred music is not only a devotional posed and performed to honor our Creator but also a bulwark against human sinfulness and frailties. Composer Arvo Pärt has been creating music of faith that inspires while at the same time subverts several of the most oppressive systems of government of the past century. poser’s lifelong development as a poser also led him to a deeper faith. He converted to Orthodox Christianity in 1972. Theologian Peter Bouteneff observed that Pärt is...
Editor's Note: Fall 2018
When I accepted the new position as managing editor of Religion & Liberty, only one thing had been set in stone: Caroline Roberts’ article on Walker Percy would be the cover story. Everything else remained to be determined. Her essay is one of the first e from Acton’s new longform journalism platform, bines extensive reporting with beautiful photography to give readers an immersive understanding of the subject. This project continues to grow and improve. Curt Biren analyzes economic and...
The return of nature worship
We live in decadent times. Universal human rights have not been fully attained, yet radical environmentalists insist that flora, fauna and even geological features and structures should be deemed legal persons, a meme known as “nature rights.” The drive to grant rights to the entirety of the natural world has already achieved stunning victories. In 2008, Ecuador granted human-type rights to “nature” in its constitution back, while Bolivia recently passed a law to the same effect. More than 30...
The politics of apocalypse
Disarmageddon” is what The Economist earlier this year called placent, reckless leaders” who “have forgotten how valuable it is to restrain nuclear weapons.” The politics of nuclear weapons – deterrence doctrines, mutually assured destruction and so on – have been the obsessive stuff of international politics since the Manhattan Project. There is, as Alissa Wilkinson and I argue in our 2015 book How to Survive the Apocalypse, something unique about the nuclear age, in which it es terrifyingly clear...
Editor's Note: Summer 2018
In early July, an Indian court issued a ruling that accorded the status of “legal person or entity” to animals in the state, saying “they have a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person.” With this measure, designed to prevent cruelty to animals, justices of the Uttarakhand High Court in northern India declared that “the entire animal kingdom, including avian and aquatic ones, are declared as legal entities having a distinct persona with corresponding...
Nature, technology, and Pompeii
The primary mission of the Acton Institute since its inception has been identifying and revealing both traditional and innovative tonics to ward off Lord Acton’s dictum: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In fact, the manner in which we wield our power over one another, our environment and God’s other creatures defines our humanity, or, in other words, who we are as individuals and social creatures. bined tradition teaches us that humanity was not created by...
Sister Mary Kenneth Keller
For the first time, we can now mechanically simulate the cognitive process. –Sister Mary Kenneth Keller Sister Mary Kenneth Keller established herself as a strong influence in the world puter science at a time when women in the field were unheard of. At the same time, her work paved the way for what we now understand as the information economy – a key driver of wealth creation. She was the first woman in the United States to earn a...
Labor unions, yesterday and today
Along-cherished predisposition on the part of the Roman Catholic Church is that labor unions act as a protection against the exploitation of workers. From Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum forward, the Church has been an outspoken proponent of organized labor, worker safety and human dignity. Thus, es as little surprise that the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops weighed-in when the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in February regarding the Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and...
Acton Briefs: Summer 2018
A collection of short essays by Acton writers, click a link to jump to that article: AU and building the free society by Jenna Suchyta Westminster Abbey praises God for the NHS by Noah Gould President Trump nominates Judge Brett Kavanaugh by Joe Carter AU and building the free society Jenna Suchyta, Acton Institute Intern Over 1,000 people flocked to Grand Rapids June 18-21 to listen to more than 80 inspiring faculty members lecture on a wide variety of...
Power, people and things in 'Westworld'
Since I was a child I’ve always loved a good story. I believed that stories helped us to ennoble ourselves, to fix what was broken in us, and to help us e the people we dreamed of being.” So begins Anthony Hopkin’s character, Robert Ford, in his speech marking the finale of the first season of HBO’s mind-bending, techno-philosophical series “Westworld.” Ford is the brilliant co-creator of Westworld, a theme park set several decades in the future in which...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved