Greystar, the nation’s largest landlord, would pay $50 million under the proposed settlement agreement, which was filed Wednesday in a Tennessee federal court. The deal would still require a judge’s approval.

The companies have also agreed to no longer share nonpublic information with RealPage for its rent algorithm — a key stipulation, since plaintiffs say RealPage used that information to enable landlords to align their prices and push up rents.

“This represents a fundamental shift in the multifamily housing industry and will help reverse the type of anticompetitive coordination alleged in the Complaint,” attorneys wrote in the settlement filing.

All companies involved in the settlement deny wrongdoing and have agreed to help plaintiffs in the ongoing case against RealPage and more than a dozen other property management firms that have not reached settlements. RealPage and others are also fighting an antitrust lawsuit filed last year by the Department of Justice and several state attorneys general. Greystar reached a settlement in that case in August.

The settlement funds from the class action lawsuit would be distributed among millions of tenants included in the settlement class.

In a statement, Greystar said these settlements “allow us to move forward and remain focused on serving our residents and clients.” Headquartered in South Carolina, Greystar manages more than 946,000 units nationwide, according to the National Multifamily Housing Council.

RealPage has vehemently denied any wrongdoing and argues that the plaintiffs misunderstand how their product works. RealPage, which is based in Texas, has said its software is used on fewer than 10% of rental units in the U.S., and that its price recommendations are used less than half the time.

“While the proposed settlements … do not include RealPage, we are encouraged to see this matter move toward closure,” Jennifer Bowcock, RealPage’s senior vice president for communications, said in a statement. “RealPage continues to believe that this litigation is without merit and that our revenue management products, and our customers’ use of them, have always been legal.”

RealPage software provides daily recommendations to help landlords and their employees price their available apartments. The landlords do not have to follow the suggestions, but critics argue that because the software has access to a vast trove of confidential data, it helps RealPage’s clients charge the highest possible rent.

RealPage argues that the real driver of high rents is a lack of housing supply. It also says that its pricing recommendations often encourage landlords to drop rents since landlords are incentivized to maximize revenue and maintain high occupancy.

Among the other defendants, Iowa-based BH Management would pay $15 million, while Denver-based Simpson Property Group would pay $6.5 million. The other companies’ settlements range between $550,000 and $6 million.

Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

“This is why owning physical media is so important.”

Amazon customers filed a class-action lawsuit after discovering they had purchased a viewing license, not the actual content they intended to access. The suit accuses the massive corporation of a “bait and switch,” alleging it misled film and TV lovers into thinking they would have guaranteed permanent access to what they paid for.

Featured Video

The news sparked widespread frustration with Amazon across social media over this practice and others.

The case: Did Amazon violate California law?

The lawsuit, filed by Lisa Reingold in California, challenges Amazon’s practice of using the word “buy” when you hand over your cash for a movie or season of your favorite TV show on Prime. The fine print, however, explains what you’re actually buying.

“You receive a license to the video and you agree to our terms,” it reads.

A license is not the same as the actual product. That license could end up being to nothing the moment Amazon loses the rights to the content, which happens regularly with streaming services.

Reingold found out about this reality when she could no longer access Bella and the Bulldogs — Volume 4 after buying it from Amazon for $20.79 in May.

The suit argues that California law prohibits this under a digital property rights transparency law that went into effect at the beginning of 2025.

“The law declares that ‘it shall be unlawful for a seller of a digital good to advertise or offer for sale a digital good to a purchaser with the terms “buy,” “purchase,” or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good,’” it states.

Exceptions to the law require the seller to make it clear to the customer that they’re buying a license instead of the digital good itself. Complainants argue that Amazon failed to meet these standards.

“One of the biggest scams of the century”

The transition from owning physical copies of media to digital purchasing has repeatedly caused frustration and anger among consumers over the years.

Fans of the video game The Crew took publisher Ubisoft to court in 2024 after the company withdrew digital support. Angry gamers, unable to play what they paid for, accused Ubisoft of violating multiple California state laws.

That case is ongoing, as is irritation against large corporations for this kind of practice.

The prevalence of subscription based services is one of the biggest scams of the century.

You pay for something you never actually own. You pay for the right to borrow everything and end up with no assets.

Everything becomes a forever expense. https://t.co/4l6kmM5p8W

— Phan | Confused Era (@movie_phan) August 26, 2025

“The prevalence of subscription-based services is one of the biggest scams of the century,” said X user @movie_phan in a response to the new lawsuit. “You pay for something you never actually own. You pay for the right to borrow everything and end up with no assets.”

“Everything becomes a forever expense.”

“Death to digital ‘purchasing,’” declared @ohMyG00och. “Turn this up!!”

Others pointed to this as another reason why owning physical copies of audiovisual works is becoming a new trend.

“This is why owning physical media is so important; they can take away your digital purchases at any time,” wrote @Roems.

Plenty more X users took the opportunity to complain about another recent and reviled Amazon practice—foisting ads upon those who paid not to see them.

“Need to sue them for ads too,” said @PoppaPetty74. “Considering they market Prime Video as a streaming service with no ads.”

---

The internet is chaotic—but we’ll break it down for you in one daily email. Sign up for the Daily Dot’s newsletter here.

“These are the types of lawsuits we need more of.”

Delta Air Lines and United Airlines are facing class action lawsuits from more than a million passengers who say they were misled into paying extra for so-called “window seats” that didn’t actually have windows. The suits argue that the airlines knowingly labeled seats next to blank walls as window seats, pocketing millions in fees while customers expected a view.

Featured Video

People have complained about this on social media for years, and the airlines’ inaction could cost them millions.

Windowless window seats

Multiple attorneys representing over a million former passengers filed two class action lawsuits on Tuesday. They accuse Delta and United Airlines of charging more for seats that promised a window without delivering the goods.

While these seats might be furthest from the aisle, some end up next to a blank wall due to window placement or to cover up air conditioning ducts, electrical conduits, and other necessary components. The complaint argues that the airlines should not have labeled these as window seats, and certainly shouldn’t have charged extra.

“Windows can captivate or distract an antsy child,” the suit against Delta reads. “Many people have a fear of flying, or get claustrophobic or motion sick on planes, and windows give them a greater level of comfort in an otherwise stressful environment. Others just want a burst of sunlight to brighten their days.”

“Whatever the motive, had Plaintiff and the class members known they were choosing a windowless seat, they would not have selected it at all, much less paid more money for it.”

Alaska and American Airlines warn customers during the booking process when seats next to the wall don’t have windows. Delta and United don’t, and the lawsuit accuses them of knowingly labeling windowless spots as “window seats” and selling millions of tickets this way.

Class actions take flight

Both filings include screenshots of social media posts from annoyed customers displaying photos of these windowless window seats. A simple search for “window seat no window” on a platform like X brings up many such posts.

On July 2024, @si4rra snapped a photo like this and wrote, “so i paid extra for a window seat….with no window.”

In 2017, @MyFavoriteDJ tweeted a photo of himself sitting at a windowless seat alongside the caption, “Hey @united paid your INSANE $75 charge for a window seat. There’s no window.”

The fact that some of these complaints date back 10 years or more explains why so many users are cheering on these class action lawsuits.

“These are the types of lawsuits we need more of,” wrote @NotZainAgain.

“I would like to join this class action. I have receipts,” @JHartley2 offered.

“Higher prices (and straight up rip-offs), declining quality,” said @ICElationist. “Gotta love it.”

User @katiermckay agreed that “we need more class actions about the quotidian scams that add up to a lifetime of exploitation.”

These lawsuits and reactions may be a sign that customers are at their limit when it comes to added fees and other shenanigans by airlines that keep finding ways to charge folks more for less.

The internet is chaotic—but we’ll break it down for you in one daily email. Sign up for the Daily Dot’s newsletter here.