Antitrust Litigation in Arizona in the Real Estate, Municipal Services and Other Sectors

Led by a Democratic Attorney General, Arizona is emerging as a key player in the enforcement of federal and state antitrust laws that aim to prevent anticompetitive business conduct. From the burgeoning real estate and rental housing markets to the tech industry, businesses and consumers can expect many developments in the antitrust landscape as courts grapple to strike a balance between innovation and competition. At the same time, labour interests and wage-fixing conspiracies are receiving increased attention. Through Arizona’s adoption of the Uniform State Antitrust Act, federal court analysis of the antitrust laws guide Arizona state court interpretations of the state antitrust laws. This necessarily makes federal courts’ resolution of high-profile antitrust cases against defendants like Apple and Live Nation even more relevant to Arizonans, as federal outcomes can directly influence the effects of state antitrust laws. Likewise, in the neighbouring State of Nevada, the antitrust litigation landscape is seemingly expanding, as plaintiffs in the hospitality and nursing sectors are seeking relief from alleged wage-fixing schemes.

Background on Arizona’s antitrust law

In 1974, then-State Senator Sandra Day O’Connor introduced the Uniform State Antitrust Act in Arizona. (Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) Title 44, Chapter 10, Article 1.) Like the Sherman Act, the Arizona Antitrust Act prohibits any “contract, combination or conspiracy between two or more persons in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce,” and the “establishment, maintenance or use of a monopoly or an attempt to establish a monopoly of trade or commerce ... for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing or maintaining prices.” That is, the Arizona Antitrust Act is just as vague as the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act. It nevertheless expressly provides that uniformity with federal antitrust laws should be an interpretative guide for state courts: “This article shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this article among those states that enact it. It is the intent of the legislature that in construing this article, the courts may use as a guide interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust statutes.” (ARS Section 44-1412.) Since the adoption of the 1974 Act, Arizona courts have generally followed federal courts in interpreting Arizona antitrust laws. (See, eg, Three Phoenix Co. v Pace Indus., Inc., 135 Arizona 113, 118–19, 659 P.2d 1258, 1263–64 (1983) (applying federal antitrust case law, the per se rule applies to horizontal market division (although it is not clear that the restraint was a horizontal market division agreement) and cases cited therein).) The key exception to this uniformity rule is that Arizona permits indirect purchasers to pursue antitrust claims. (Bunker’s Glass Co. v Pilkington PLC, 206 Arizona 9, 19, 75 P.3d 99, 109 (2003).) This decision was largely premised on the Arizona Constitution, which provides that a “person ... injured ... by [an antitrust violation] may bring an action for ... damages sustained.” (Arizona Constitution, Article 14, Section 15.)

Algorithm-based price-fixing conspiracy in the rental housing market

Arizona courts are set to play an active role in addressing antitrust litigation in the rental housing context as Arizona Attorney General Kristin Mayes’ commenced an antitrust action on behalf of the state against RealPage, Inc. and nine rental property lessors in Arizona. Set at the cross-section of the rental-housing industry and market participants’ use of emerging technologies, multifamily housing lessors’ common utilisation of revenue management software is an expected focal point in the antitrust field for years to come.

Brought in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County, the complaint alleges that the lessor defendants entered into a hub-and-spoke conspiracy centred around RealPage to charge monopolistic prices. (Arizona, ex rel. Kristin K. Mayes v RealPage, Inc. et al., (Case No. CV2024-003889).) Specifically, the state alleges the lessor defendants collectively agreed to provide RealPage with their respective pricing and occupancy data, which RealPage then feeds into an algorithm. RealPage’s algorithm provides each lessor with pricing on their specific units, which the lessor defendants allegedly agreed to accept and follow. That is, the lessor defendants are allegedly outsourcing their pricing authority to a common entity, which sets prices for all of the lessor defendants. The state further alleges the lessor defendants forego high rates of occupancy in exchange for the monopolistic pricing RealPage provides. Such monopolistic pricing is only possible if the alleged conspirators all adhere to RealPage’s pricing. To that end, RealPage allegedly seeks to promote and enforce compliance with its provided pricing. The alleged result of the conspiracy is significantly higher prices for renters in Arizona.

Given the novel dynamics of the alleged conspiracy, Arizona courts are likely to look to federal court applications of the antitrust laws to algorithm-based conspiracies. Indeed, the Arizona Uniform Antitrust Act encourages such guidance, stating “[i]t is the intent of the legislature that in construing this article, the courts may use as a guide interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust statutes.” (ARS Section 44-1412.) The novel aspects of the alleged conspiracy, however, frustrate harmonised applications of the antitrust laws. There are presently three federal court proceedings analysing the claims and theories at issue in Kristin K. Mayes v RealPage. In United States v RealPage, Inc. (M.D. N.C. Case No. 1:24-cv-00710), the United States and ten states sued Realpage over the same alleged anticompetitive conduct challenged in Kristin K. Mayes v RealPage. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss in that proceeding, arguing the plaintiffs have failed to allege an antitrust violation. Those motions test the legal issues and standards applicable to algorithm-based conspiracy claims and are presently pending before the court.

In Gibson v MGM Resorts Int’l., (D. Nev., Case No. 2:23-CV-00140), a group of private plaintiffs sued Las Vegas-based hotels and a revenue management software provider based on analogous claims and theories. In May 2025, the district court found the plaintiffs failed to state an antitrust claim and dismissed the action with prejudice. (Id., 2023 WL 7025996 (D. Nev. 2023)). The plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which rendered its decision affirming the district court’s ruling on 15 August 2025. (See Gibson, et al. v Cendyn Group, LLC, et al., (9th Circuit, Case No. 24-3576).) The appellate process magnified the differences between Gibson and other algorithm-based antitrust claims. Notably, the plaintiffs abandoned the claim that the hotels had collectively agreed to utilise the revenue management software. Instead, the plaintiffs relied solely on the claim that the hotels’ individual agreements with the revenue management software provider, taken in the aggregate, constituted unreasonable restraints on trade in violation of the Sherman Act. The 9th Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ remaining claim, demonstrating the difficulty plaintiffs may face in pursuing algorithm-based claims outside the per se context. Because the United States District Court for the District of Arizona falls within the 9th Circuit, the appellate court’s ruling could have particular persuasive relevance to Arizona state courts applying the antitrust laws.

Finally, In re RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (M.D. Tenn., Case No. 3:23-MD-03071) is a multidistrict litigation proceeding, consolidating cases from across the country for pre-trial proceedings. In re RealPage also addresses the same claims and theories centred around lessors’ use of RealPage’s revenue management software. Unlike United States v RealPage and Gibson, et al. v Cendyn Group, this proceeding has passed the pleading stage and is in the midst of discovery. Accordingly, In re RealPage will give Arizona courts guidance in addressing algorithm-based antitrust claims at the summary-judgment stage.

Antitrust litigation in the real estate sector

Following recent national trends, the intersection between real estate and technology continues to be a hotbed of antitrust litigation in Arizona. At the tail end of 2023, Zillow Group, Inc. and ShowingTime.com, LLC – which Zillow acquired in 2021 – sued two Multiple Listings Services (MLS) and an MLS consortium under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, in the US District Court for the District of Arizona. (Zillow Grp., Inc. and ShowingTime.com, LLC v Ariz. Reg’l Multiple Listing Serv., Inc.; Multiple Listing Serv., Inc.; and MLS Aligned, LLC (D. Ariz., Case No. 2:23-cv-02701-MTL).) The crux of the lawsuit was the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendants were attempting to monopolise the market for real-estate-showing-management services and conspiring to exclude ShowingTime, their competitor, from certain geographic markets. Alleging that the defendants conspired to remove access to the ShowingTime.com platform from their members’ online portals, the plaintiffs urged that the defendants’ actions prevented real estate agents from using ShowingTime to schedule and manage real estate listings.

In February 2024, the defendants all moved to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim. The MLS consortium argued that both claims against it failed because plaintiffs did not allege an agreement amongst the defendants to exclude ShowingTime from any MLS member portal. In a separate motion to dismiss, the two MLS entities urged in part that neither Zillow nor ShowingTime had standing to sue because they failed to allege an antitrust injury. Identifying that the plaintiffs’ true grievance was with genuine competition in the market – rather than unlawful anticompetitive practices – defendants accused plaintiffs of weaponising antitrust laws to halt legal competition.

Both motions to dismiss were fully briefed. But the court never had the chance to address them, as the parties notified the court of an impending settlement in the days before the motions were set for oral argument. On 2 August 2024, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action. Because the case was resolved without substantive analysis from the court, it leaves the broader legal community wondering how the Arizona district court would come out on these intersectional issues. But with a fast growing population and booming construction industry, Arizona is sure to be presented with another opportunity to address antitrust laws in the real estate context before long.

Antitrust litigation in the municipal services sector

Earlier this year, in a memorandum decision accepting special-action jurisdiction, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed anti-competitive behaviour in the context of municipal garbage collection, upholding the lower court’s denial of summary judgment to Defendant Colorado City on multiple grounds. (Town of Colorado City v Centennial Park Disposal, Inc., No. 1 CA-SA 25-0035 (Arizona Court of Appeals, 6 May 2025).)

In September 2022, Centennial Park Disposal, Inc. (“Centennial”) – a private garbage-collection company – sued Colorado City, Arizona (the “City”), for compelling municipal water-service customers to pay for municipal garbage-collection services. The lower court construed Centennial’s allegations in its second-amended complaint to include that the City had engaged in anti-competitive conduct in violation of ARS Section 9-516 and Arizona’s Uniform State Antitrust Act, ARS Sections 44-1401 to -1416. The City ultimately moved for summary judgment based on the affirmative defences of limitations and immunity, which the lower court rejected.

On appeal, the Arizona appellate court concluded that the lower court had properly denied summary judgment to the City on limitations and immunity grounds. The Court of Appeals examined immunity under two lenses: (i) ARS Section 12-820.01, and (ii) state-action exemption to antitrust liability, which is “a federal doctrine premised on federalism and state sovereignty.” (Town of Colorado City, No. 1 CA-SA 25-0035 at ¶ 17 (citing Town of Hallie v City of Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34, 38 (1985)).) Under ARS Section 12-820.01, the Court of Appeals found that the City was not acting according to its legislative or qualifying administrative functions and was thus precluded from immunity. As for the state-action exemption, the Court of Appeals looked to the 9th Circuit for guidance. (Id. at ¶ 18 (citing Mothershed v Justices of Sup. Ct., 410 F.3d 602, 609–10 (9th Cir. 2005)).) It ultimately concluded that the exemption did not apply here because there was no clearly articulated state policy for municipalities to displace all competition around garbage collection. (Id.) Thus, because Arizona’s statutory scheme “contemplate[s] that municipalities must encourage private garbage collection,” the City could not benefit from immunity.

Affirming the district court’s decision, the Court of Appeals accepted special-action jurisdiction but denied relief to the City. The case is set to proceed to a jury trial in late 2025/early 2026 and will likely continue to provide useful insights into the application of Arizona’s state antitrust laws.

Arizona Attorney General’s office antitrust enforcement against tech companies

Elected in 2022, Arizona’s Attorney General Kris Mayes has identified antitrust enforcement – particularly in the technology arena – as one of her priorities: “A competitive, fair marketplace promotes lower prices, higher quality goods and services and more options for consumers. My team and I at the Attorney General’s Office will continue to go after illegal and unfair business practices to protect Arizonans.” (Press Release, Arizona Attorney General, Attorney General Mayes Announces USD700 million Settlement with Google over Play Store Misconduct (19 December 2023) – last accessed 31 July 2025.) Since taking office, Mayes has joined other states and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in federal antitrust lawsuits against tech giants like Apple (United States, et al. v Apple, Inc. (D. N.J. Case No. 2:24-cv-04055)) and most recently against Live Nation and Ticketmaster (United States, et al. v Live Nation Entm’t, Inc. and Ticketmaster, LLC (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:24-cv-03973)). Arizona also independently brought two suits against Amazon under Arizona law. (Arizona, ex rel. Kristin K. Mayes v Amazon.com, Inc. (Case No. CV2024-011990); and Arizona, ex rel. Kristin K. Mayes v Amazon.com, Inc. (Case No. CV2023-012081). Additionally, Mayes’ office was involved in the USD700 million settlement of an antitrust case against Google. (Utah et al. v Google, LLC (N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:21-cv-05227-JD).)

The lawsuits against Amazon, Apple, Live Nation, and Ticketmaster remain in the early stages. In March 2024, Mayes joined the DOJ and 15 other state and district attorneys general (later joined by four additional states) in a suit against Apple under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey. Accusing Apple of monopolising the smartphone market, the complaint characterises the lawsuit as “about freeing smartphone markets from Apple’s anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct and restoring competition to lower smartphone prices for consumers, reducing fees for developers, and preserving innovation for the future.” (Complaint at 4, United States, et al. v Apple, Inc. (D. N.J. Case No. 2:24-cv-04055) (filed 21 March 2024).) In June 2025, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the parties have since commenced discovery.

Similarly, in May 2024, Arizona joined the DOJ and a bipartisan coalition of 29 other states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit against Live Nation – owner of Ticketmaster – under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs allege that Live Nation monopolises the live music industry, controlling which artists perform at which venues, how and when fans can buy tickets, and what fees they must pay – all of which push potential competitors out of the music space. In March 2025, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the parties have since commenced discovery.

Finally, in May 2024, Mayes’ office brought two separate state-court suits against Amazon, relying on the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and the Arizona Uniform State Antitrust Act. Both cases are pending in the Maricopa County Superior Court of the State of Arizona. One of the actions draws attention to Amazon Prime’s cancellation process, through which Amazon allegedly employs methods called “dark patterns” to misdirect consumers and discourage them from cancelling their Prime subscriptions. The second suit, on the other hand, is based on the company’s use of its “Buy Box algorithm,” through which Arizona alleges that Amazon tries to maximise its own profits while disfavouring other third-party sellers and forcing them to overcome additional obstacles if they wish to continue doing business with the company.

Arizona Attorney General’s office merger enforcement and focus on labour

In addition to Attorney General Meyes’ participation in conduct cases involving tech companies, the Attorney General’s office is joining efforts relating to merger enforcement. On 26 February 2024, Arizona joined the Federal Trade Commission and eight states in suing to block Kroger Company’s USD24.6 billion acquisition of competing supermarket Albertsons Companies, Inc. (FTC et al. v The Kroger Co. and Albertsons Cos., Inc. (D. Or., Case No. 24-cv-00347).) The FTC and joining states also issued an administrative complaint before the Federal Trade Commission. If completed, the merger would unify more than 5,000 supermarket stores and employ nearly 700,000 employees, including 250 stores and 35,000 employees in Arizona. On 10 December 2024, however, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the merger. Following the court’s ruling, both Kroger and Albertsons abandoned the merger.

In addition to its outcome, the arguments raised in challenging the merger are notable. Alongside concerns regarding harm to consumers – including higher prices and lower quality products and services – the merger’s impact on labour is a chief concern. The FTC and joining states specifically raised concern regarding the merger’s impact on organised labour. The merger enforcement could indicate an increased effort from the Arizona Attorney General’s office to challenge mergers, particularly when a merger potentially simultaneously harms consumers and workers. Moving forward, businesses should continue to assess Attorney General Mayes’ alignment with the federal enforcers, particularly following the outcome of the 2024 presidential election.

Antitrust enforcers’ increased focus on wage fixing

In late 2016, the FTC and DOJ issued Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals, clarifying the FTC and DOJ’s position that certain agreements between employers (eg, no-poach, and wage-fixing) constitute per se violations of antitrust laws. Pursuant to the guidelines, the agencies demonstrated their intent to criminally prosecute such agreements. After initial enforcement actions proved unsuccessful, the DOJ obtained its first wage-fixing conviction nearly a decade after the issuance of the 2016 Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals.

In 2023, Eduardo Lopez was indicted for allegedly participating in a conspiracy to fix wages for nursing services in Nevada from March 2016 until May 2019. (United States v Lopez, (D. Nev. No. 23-cr-00055).) Prosecutors alleged that Lopez, a home healthcare manager, had worked with others in the industry to fix the wages of home healthcare nurses in Las Vegas. After a nearly three-week trial, Lopez was convicted on 14 April 2025, of entering into an agreement to fix, control, raise, lower, maintain, or stabilise the wage paid, or to be paid, for nursing services. The criminal conviction demonstrates antitrust enforcers’ increased focus on potential antitrust violations in labour markets.

Private plaintiffs will seek to ride the momentum from antitrust enforcers’ heightened focus on wage fixing. For example, on 8 August 2025, a judge in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in Alvarado v W. Range Ass’n, (D. Nev., Case No. 3:22-CV-00249). In denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss and allowing the putative class action to proceed to discovery, the court found that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the Western Range Association and its members engaged in an unlawful hub-and-spoke agreement to fix sheepherder wages and horizontally allocate the market for foreign sheepherders. (Id.) Moving forward, antitrust enforcers and private plaintiffs will likely seek to further develop the application of the antitrust laws in the labour context and sustain recent successes.