When the Justice Department filed its proposed settlement with Willow Bridge Property Company, it highlighted a significant enforcement action against algorithmic coordination in rental markets. The allegations were clear: landlords shared sensitive data through pricing algorithms, used anticompetitive rules to align pricing, and discussed pricing strategies with competitors.
For your compliance team, this case sends a strong message. If your organization uses algorithms for pricing, you need a framework to audit them before regulators do.
This checklist will help you assess whether your pricing tools, data-sharing practices, and vendor relationships pose antitrust risks.
Prerequisites
Before starting this audit, gather these essentials:
Documentation of all algorithmic tools. Compile a complete inventory of software that generates pricing, bidding, or competitive recommendations. Include vendor names, contract terms, and descriptions of how each tool works.
Data flow maps. Identify what data feeds into each algorithm, its sources, and whether it includes competitor information.
Vendor contracts and certifications. Review your agreements with third-party providers. Look for terms that describe data sources, algorithm design, and compliance obligations.
If you don't have these materials ready, that's your first compliance gap.
Checklist Items
1. Verify that pricing algorithms do not incorporate competitors' sensitive data.
Check whether your pricing tool uses real-time or aggregated data from competitors. Sensitive data includes current prices, costs, margins, capacity, or future pricing intentions.
Good looks like: Your pricing algorithm relies on your own historical data, publicly available market information, and non-competitive inputs like weather or seasonality. Document the data sources in writing.
2. Confirm that algorithms do not include features designed to align pricing with competitors.
Review the algorithm's logic. Does it include rules that push your prices toward a competitor's range? Does it penalize pricing that deviates from market norms?
Good looks like: Your algorithm optimizes for your business objectives (revenue, occupancy, margin) without reference to competitor behavior. The tool documentation explains how recommendations are generated, and none of the logic references competitive alignment.
3. Establish a process to review algorithm outputs before implementation.
Algorithms generate recommendations. Your team decides whether to accept them. You need a documented review step that checks for anomalies or patterns suggesting coordination.
Good looks like: Pricing managers review algorithm outputs weekly and document decisions to accept, reject, or modify recommendations. Maintain a log of overrides and the business reasons behind them.
4. Audit vendor-hosted meetings and forums for antitrust risk.
The Willow Bridge settlement prohibits participation in vendor-hosted meetings of competing landlords. If your pricing vendor convenes user groups, conferences, or strategy sessions, you need to know what gets discussed.
Good looks like: You have a written policy prohibiting attendance at vendor events where competitors discuss pricing, costs, capacity, or market strategy. If employees attend user groups, they receive antitrust training first and report back on topics covered.
5. Implement data-sharing guardrails with third-party vendors.
When you share data with a vendor, you need contractual terms that restrict how they use it. The vendor should not pool your data with competitors' data to generate recommendations unless the data is sufficiently anonymized and historical.
Good looks like: Your vendor contract specifies that your sensitive data will not be shared with or used to benefit competitors. The contract defines "competitively sensitive" and includes audit rights so you can verify compliance.
6. Train employees who interact with competitors on antitrust boundaries.
Employees who attend industry events, serve on trade association committees, or interact with vendor account teams need to know what they cannot discuss.
Good looks like: All employees in pricing, sales, and procurement complete annual antitrust training that includes specific examples of prohibited topics. Training covers both formal meetings and informal conversations. You track completion and test comprehension.
7. Create a certification process for third-party pricing tools.
If you use a third-party algorithm, you need assurance that it complies with antitrust law. The Willow Bridge settlement requires a court-appointed monitor if the company uses a non-certified third-party tool.
Good looks like: Before deploying a pricing algorithm, your legal or compliance team reviews its design, data sources, and output logic. Document this review and update it when the vendor releases new versions. If the tool poses risk, require vendor modifications or accept monitoring.
8. Monitor for red flags in pricing patterns.
Even a compliant algorithm can produce outcomes that look suspicious. You need a process to detect patterns suggesting coordination, such as simultaneous price changes across competitors or unusually stable pricing in volatile markets.
Good looks like: Run quarterly reports comparing your pricing changes to competitor moves. If you see unexplained correlation, investigate the cause and document your findings.
9. Establish a clear escalation path for antitrust concerns.
Employees need to know how to raise concerns about algorithm behavior, vendor practices, or competitor interactions.
Good looks like: Your Standards of Business Conduct include a section on antitrust compliance with examples and a named contact in legal or compliance. Employees can report concerns through your internal reporting channels without fear of retaliation.
Common Mistakes
Assuming that using a vendor insulates you from liability. The Willow Bridge case makes clear that landlords face enforcement risk even when a third party provides the algorithm. You're responsible for how you use the tool.
Treating algorithm audits as a one-time project. Algorithms change. Vendors update their models. Your data inputs evolve. You need recurring audits, not a single review at contract signing.
Confusing legal data with competitively sensitive data. Just because data is publicly available doesn't mean you can share it with competitors through an algorithm. The issue is whether the data reveals competitive strategy or intentions.
Failing to document your compliance efforts. If regulators investigate, you need evidence that you took reasonable steps to prevent anticompetitive conduct. Verbal policies don't count.
Next Steps
Start with item one on this checklist. If you can't verify that your algorithms avoid competitor data, pause and investigate. Don't wait for a subpoena to discover what your pricing tool actually does.
If your organization uses multiple algorithms across different business units, assign ownership. Someone needs to be accountable for antitrust compliance in algorithmic decision-making.
Finally, update your vendor due diligence process. Before you sign a contract for any tool that touches pricing, bidding, or competitive positioning, require the vendor to demonstrate antitrust compliance. Make it a deal term, not an afterthought.
The enforcement action against Willow Bridge and other landlords signals that regulators are scrutinizing algorithmic coordination across industries. Your compliance program needs to catch up.
