United States: Connecticut Enacts State Antitrust Law on Algorithms

In brief

State antitrust enforcement against algorithmic pricing is continuing to accelerate in 2026. Effective January 1st, Connecticut has become the third state to adopt a statute that prohibits certain algorithmic pricing, after California and New York did in 2025. Similar to New York’s statute, Connecticut’s new legislation, HB8002, focuses on algorithmic pricing in the rental housing market. Connecticut’s HB8002 specifically forbids anyone from using “a revenue management device to set rental rates or occupancy levels from residential dwelling units.” As more states follow suit and adopt similar legislation, organizations using pricing algorithms should stay informed about evolving legal standards to ensure compliance with both federal and state regulations.

Key takeaways

• California, New York, and Connecticut have all enacted legislation to limit the use of algorithmic pricing, expanding antitrust enforcement to state levels.
• Connecticut’s statute is the first state law to limit its prohibition to the use of nonpublic competitor information, allowing for the use of public data when setting rental prices.
• As concerns about algorithmic pricing increase, we anticipate that other states will follow, given that the 2025 state legislation sessions saw the introduction of over 50 bills across 24 states focused on limiting or prohibiting the use of algorithmic pricing.

In more detail

Connecticut has now codified prohibitions against the use of algorithmic pricing in the rental housing market with its new statute, HB8002, which amends the Connecticut Antitrust Act. Under the Connecticut Antitrust Act, either the state or a private party may pursue charges against any person in violation of the statute in Connecticut state courts.¹

Connecticut’s legislation prohibits the use of any “revenue management device” to set rental rates or occupancy levels for residential units.² A violation of the statute occurs when anyone uses this revenue management device for the purpose of advising a landlord on either (i) whether to leave a unit vacant, or (ii) the amount of rent that the landlord may obtain for a unit.³ Further, the statute defines a revenue management device to include any (i) revenue management software (ii) that incorporates one or more programmed or automated processes (iii) to perform calculations of non-public competitor data.⁴ Furthermore, a device that either (a) includes “a report that publishes existing rental data in an aggregated manner but does not recommend rental rates or occupancy levels for future leases” or (b) is a "product used for the purpose of establishing rent or income limits in accordance with the affordable housing program guidelines” do not qualify as “revenue management devices” for purposes of this prohibition and are therefore permitted under the statute.⁵ Violations of this statute shall be subject to the investigation and enforcement provisions of Connecticut’s Antitrust Act, which includes penalties of up to $100,000 for an individual and $1,000,000 for a corporation.⁶

This new statute expands state antitrust enforcement against algorithmic pricing to include three states. Last year both California and New York enacted similar state laws prohibiting the use of algorithmic pricing. While California’s new law applies across multiple industries, both New York and Connecticut focused their legislation on the rental housing market specifically. California amended the Cartwright Act to prohibit the use of pricing algorithms and coercing anyone to adopt recommended prices using these algorithms. Like Connecticut, New York amended the Donnelly Act to prohibit rental property owners from using algorithmic pricing tools to set rental prices for tenants.

Unlike California or New York, however, Connecticut’s HB002 is the first state law to explicitly limit its prohibition to the use of “nonpublic competitor data,” thereby excluding information available to the general public from the statue’s algorithmic pricing prohibition.⁷ The statue defines these “revenue management devices,” as software which performs calculations from “non-public competitor data.”⁸ The legislation defines “nonpublic competitor data” to include information “that is not available to the general public, including information about actual rent amounts, occupancy levels, lease start and end dates and other similar data[.]”⁹ This distinction limits the prohibition to pricing tools that use competitively sensitive information, allowing for companies to use public data when setting rental prices.

The below table highlights certain details of each state law:

State Laws Prohibiting Algorithmic Pricing.

While Connecticut is now the third state to codify prohibitions against algorithmic pricing, more states are likely to follow. Notably, in 2025, state legislature spanning over 24 states introduced bills that seek to address growing concerns with algorithmic pricing, most of which focused on rent-setting in the housing market. Examples include Colorado’s HB25-1004,¹⁰ which seeks to prohibit algorithmic pricing between landlords in the same market pertaining to rent and New Jersey’s S3657,¹¹ which seeks to make it unlawful for landlords or property managers to use algorithmic systems to influence rental prices or housing supply in New Jersey. Other areas of potential state legislation against algorithmic pricing include prohibitions against dynamic pricing based on customer’s biometric data, (e.g., Pennsylvania HB 1779,¹² Illinois SB2255¹³) as well as the use of algorithmic pricing in ticket sales (e.g., Illinois HB3838¹⁴) and grocery stores (e.g., Massachusetts HB99¹⁵). Other states seek to require transparent disclosure at the point of sale rather than establish an outright prohibition (e.g., Texas SB 2567¹⁶). As more states introduce similar legislations, organizations utilizing dynamic pricing software should closely monitor proposals and new laws to ensure they are in compliance. As legal developments continue in this area, we will closely monitor them and provide updates.

1 CT Gen. Stat. Ch. 624, § 35-33 (“Connecticut Antitrust Act”)
2 House Bill No. 8002, Conn. Gen. Assembly, Nov. 2025, effective Jan. 1, 2026, codified at Connecticut Antitrust Act § 32 available at https://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/TOB/H/PDF/2025HB-08002-R00-HB.PDF.
3 Id. at ¶¶ 2156-2163.
4 Id. at ¶¶ 2156-2163.
5 Id. at ¶¶ 2156-2163.
6 Connecticut Antitrust Act §§ 35-38.
7 Connecticut Antitrust Act § 32, at ¶¶ 2156-2158.
8 Id. at ¶¶ 2156-2158.
9 Id. at ¶¶ 2169-2175.
10 House Bill No. HB25-1004, Col. Gen. Assembly, available at https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1004. While the legislation passed, the governor vetoed the new statute.
11 Senate Bill No. S3657, Gen. Assembly, available at https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S3657/2024
12 House Bill No. 1779, Penn. Gen. Assembly, available at https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb1779
13 Senate Bill No. 2255, Ill. 104th Gen. Assembly, available at https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1824744
14 House Bill No. 3838, Ill. 104th Gen. Assembly, available at https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus?DocNum=3838&GAID=18&DocTypeID=HB&SessionID=114&GA=104
15 House Bill No. 99, Mass. Gen. Assembly, available at https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H99
16 Senate Bill No. 2567, Tex. 89th Leg. Session, available at https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB2567