There's nothing in the complaint that corresponds to those claims of the ProPublica article and subsequent blogs and press reports.

Did you read the complaint? Some of those allegations are absolutely cited in the complaint.

They spell it out explicitly, starting in section two. And so obviously do so, I can’t take your comment as in good faith.

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/DC%20OAG%20Re...

Eg, paragraph 57 spells out exactly the allegation you’re saying isn’t there.

Keep in mind you are reading a complaint, and not a decision, so it is obviously biased.

Also, I think there is a pretty big difference between enforcing compliance and saying "we think you will make the most if you list at the recommended price".

Where would you draw the line for collusion? Simple information sharing? Recommending listing within 10% of the mean? Punishments for deviating from the mean? Actively setting and listing the price for the landlord.

By my reading, Realpage may be engaging in collusion in the cases where it actively manages and sets prices for landlords, but not in the cases where it simply reports and recommends a price.

Im guessing they will have to discontinue the service offerings where they take the control and responsibility for setting the price and listing it on behalf of the landlord

You've been downvoted for critical reading. You're right though. Paragraph 57 in the complaint in no way supports the "must" compliance allegations in the cited blog. Ability to perceive that isn't even first-year law school stuff, it's LSAT stuff.

Yes, The closest I could find to a penalty in the complaint is that Landlords are asked to explain why they are pricing outside the range, or may receive a call from Realpage for information

They’re kicked out if their participation isn’t sufficiently high — as spelled out in paragraph 69.

They make a lot of bold claims in paragraph 69 you mean. The only evidence is some employee said "sometimes we were happy to see people go"

Looking past the bluster at the statements of fact, I don't see anything supporting it in the doc. Thats why they have to lean so hard on text questionnaire and phone calls in the he other section as a cartel enforcement method.

Paragraph 57 supports the second quote, directly.

Paragraphs 64-70 support the first quote.

You’re correct that this is LSAT level, which is why it’s so shocking that you’re not able to read a few pages that are clearly labeled.

Not correct. See paragraph 58. In fact, the preponderance of section 2(A) of the Relevant Facts section puts flesh on these bones.

This sounds like a very weasely framing. Is RealPage putting a gun to landlord's heads? I find it much more likely that they're saying if you aren't listening to our recommendations, we can't guarantee that you'll benefit from them.