More than two years after Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes launched a high-profile lawsuit against RealPage, a software company that provides data tools to landlords to help set market rental rates, claiming widespread rent coordination—key questions remain unanswered about whether any Arizona tenants were actually harmed. Compounding those concerns, Mayes hired a private class-action firm with a financial stake in the outcome—one that has also contributed to the attorney general’s campaign—raising serious questions about whether the case actually serves the public interest.
Mayes garnered national attention in February 2024 by filing a lawsuit in Arizona against RealPage. The lawsuit claims that RealPage enabled landlords to share competitive data to coordinate higher rents and force consumers to pay more.
If that is the case, one would expect to see actual complaints from actual tenants, alleging actual harm. But the complaint did not mention any specific consumer complaints from tenants. That’s why the Goldwater Institute filed a public records request seeking the number of complaints—no names, not private information, just a number. However, the attorney general refused to provide the information, claiming that if any documents existed, they would be confidential. Numbers compiled by the AG’s Office are not confidential, and if any complaints existed, it would be easy to state the number.
This raises questions about whether Mayes’ lawsuit was really based on consumer complaints, whether they engaged in an independent investigation of alleged consumer harm, or whether this litigation is a guise for some other political purpose.
Notably, the attorney general’s lawsuit was almost identical to the other price fixing class-action lawsuits brought by the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. The private firm has been a central driver of algorithmic pricing litigation in places like Tennessee and Washington. Hagens Berman has been accused of trying to “manufacture” antitrust conspiracies and has faced criticism for aggressively racing to lead major cases in pursuit of profit in high-stakes antitrust litigation.
Despite accusations of fabricating consumer harm, Mayes elected to hire Hagens Berman on a contingency-fee basis (receiving a percentage of the judgment or settlement) to prosecute on behalf of the State. Because of the arrangement, the firm stands to gain financially from a successful—or at least aggressively pursued—lawsuit.
State attorneys general are elected officials with vast enforcement power, and the cases they bring are taxpayer funded. As a result, they should prioritize high-impact public issues and fairly and impartially pursue cases in the public’s interest.
By contrast, private class-action law firms are profit-driven—incentivized to maximize recovery by reaching large settlements or judgments in order to obtain larger fees. Private firms don’t always look for settlements to avoid costly litigation or to provide immediate redress to harmed consumers.
Perhaps even more troubling, shortly after filing the Arizona lawsuit, Kris Mayes for Arizona, a political campaign for the attorney general, received over $20,000 in individual campaign donations from Hagens Berman attorneys, including from lead attorneys on the case.
When the attorney general’s actions appear intertwined with private profit motives involving a political donor, as it does here, it raises questions about whether the attorney general’s decisions serve taxpayers or insiders.
Indeed, even modest, individual donations undermine the public’s confidence that the RealPage litigation had anything to do with consumer production and a lot more to do with benefitting political supporters.
In other words, private gain should never be prioritized over impartial public justice. Arizona taxpayers are footing the bill for litigation that a private law firm is incentivized to prolong for maximum recovery. Mayes has yet to disclose whether any Arizonans were actually harmed and whether the RealPage lawsuit was a legitimate consumer protection action or government overreach enabled by close relationships.
The Goldwater Institute will continue to demand transparency of public officials and hold the government accountable to the governed. The public has a right to know what its government is up to and how justice is being pursued in their name—if it is being pursued in their name at all.l
