Your tenant screening algorithm and your pricing algorithm are both lawsuits waiting — under two completely different statutes. Most property management companies treat screening compliance and pricing compliance as separate problems. Courts and regulators don't. Front one: tenant screening. SafeRent's scoring model weighted credit history heavily and scored housing voucher holders low — without counting the guaranteed income a voucher provides. Median FICO breaks along racial lines (727 White, 667 Hispanic, 627 Black), so credit-as-primary-feature encodes that disparity straight into approval rates. The court rejected the "we're just a neutral vendor" defense and held the screening provider shares liability. $2.275M settlement, plus a five-year injunction barring automated approve/decline for voucher applicants without independent civil-rights review. Fair Housing Act, disparate impact, the four-fifths rule. Front two: pricing. RealPage pooled non-public rents and occupancy data from competing landlords and nudged prices "in unison" — the DOJ called it a hub-and-spoke cartel. Landlords have paid $140M+ in class-action settlements. Sherman Act, Section 1. Same company. Same algorithmic stack. Two unrelated legal theories. And in 2026 the map gets denser: California AB 325, New York S.7882, Colorado SB 205 — each with its own definition of what's illegal. Here's the part most miss: Yardi won its California case not by arguing intent, but by proving data isolation by architecture — cross-client contamination was impossible by design. The court accepted that its system "does not and by design cannot use any client's confidential pricing information for any other client." Compliance here is an engineering property, not a policy memo. Save this if you run tenant screening or algorithmic pricing. Which front is your bigger exposure right now — screening or pricing? #FairHousing #AIGovernance #PropTech #AlgorithmicPricing #HousingCompliance