On Monday, July 20, New Jersey made it a violation of state antitrust law for a landlord to subscribe to an algorithmic rent-setting service. The violation is paying for the software. Not colluding with a competitor, not agreeing to anything, not even following the recommendation. Writing the check.

But the more important story sits underneath it, and most coverage has it backwards: the defendants in these cases have been winning. The Las Vegas Strip casino-hotel case against MGM, Caesars, Wynn and Treasure Island was dismissed with prejudice, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court declined to hear it in April. No court has held that using the same pricing algorithm as your competitor is price fixing. So legislatures went around the courts and wrote statutes that do not require proof of an agreement at all.

Which brings up the exposure nobody has briefed you on. California's Assembly Bill 325 has been law since September 2025. It has no industry limit. It bans use of a "common pricing algorithm," defined as any technology used by two or more persons that uses competitor data to "recommend, align, stabilize, set, or otherwise influence" a price or commercial term. Not collude. Influence. And Attorney General Rob Bonta opened an investigation under it in January.

Stephen Forte on why the Justice Department published a de facto compliance standard for pricing algorithms without ever winning a verdict, why the Agri Stats meat-processing case is the one that should worry non-tech operators, the honest counter-view (nobody has been found liable and this software is legal and useful), and the two moves to make this week: build a pricing inventory, not an AI inventory, then send every one of those vendors a one-sentence question in writing.