Greystar: The Most Evil Real Estate Company

📎 Source Note: The legal sources referenced to write this article are attached at the bottom of the page.

The housing market has become one of the most visible battlegrounds for wealth inequality in America—and Greystar is at the forefront of this crisis.

With its vast portfolio of luxury properties and relentless rent hikes, the company caters to affluent tenants while sidelining those struggling to make ends meet.

This profit-driven model not only widens the gap between rich and poor but also destabilizes communities by displacing vulnerable populations.

As wages stagnate and housing costs soar, Greystar’s practices highlight how corporate greed perpetuates cycles of poverty and precarity in an already fractured society.

So what exactly makes Greystar so evil? Let me count the ways….

The Tenant Experience

For tenants across the globe, Greystar’s name has become synonymous with frustration and exploitation.

The company’s business model often involves acquiring well-maintained properties, slashing operational costs, and introducing a slew of hidden fees—all while raising rents.

Tenants report mandatory charges for services like “valet trash” or package handling that offer little to no value but significantly inflate monthly costs[2][13][51].

Greystar’s disregard for tenant well-being is evident in countless horror stories:

Fraudulent Charges: Tenants frequently face baseless move-out charges or inflated fees for cleaning and repairs, with little to no evidence provided[16][22].
Neglect and Safety Hazards: Maintenance issues such as broken elevators, faulty air conditioning during heatwaves, and even asbestos warnings are left unresolved for weeks or months[14][16].
Community Decay: Once vibrant properties are downgraded under Greystar’s management. Lawn care deteriorates, amenities remain perpetually “under maintenance,” and basic services like package security are ignored[2][51].

In one particularly egregious case, a tenant faced months of construction delays in their apartment while being exposed to asbestos warnings—an ordeal that ruined their holidays and posed significant health risks[16].

These stories paint a grim picture of a company more interested in extracting every last dollar than providing safe and livable housing.

The Department of Justice Steps In

The DOJ even recently sued Greystar for using algorithms to fuck over all of the rest of us!

1. Coordinated Rent Increases and Reduced Competition

Greystar and other landlords provided nonpublic, competitively sensitive data—such as signed lease prices, future occupancy data, and tenant demand metrics—to RealPage. RealPage aggregated and shared this data to recommend rents to these landlords, including Greystar, through its pricing software. By using competitors’ private data, Greystar was able to:

Raise rents collectively by avoiding undercutting competitor prices. This led to artificially inflated rents that were not determined by free-market competition. Renters were thereby deprived of the opportunity to benefit from natural price reductions during periods of low demand.
Minimize price decreases even in “down markets,” causing renters to face higher rent burdens when economic conditions might otherwise call for more relief.

These actions removed the natural forces of competition that might otherwise compel landlords to lower rents or provide better terms, harming renters financially.

2. Sharing of Proprietary Data to Restrict Price Competition

Greystar actively shared its pricing and leasing strategies with competitors, including auto-acceptance thresholds and rent renewal rates, both through RealPage’s software and direct coordination with other landlords:

Direct Price-Fixing Behavior: Greystar’s participation extended to direct communications with competing landlords to align rent increases, restrict concessions, and standardize lease renewal terms. For instance:
- Greystar’s director of revenue management shared Greystar’s pricing parameters with competitors like Willow Bridge and Cushman & Wakefield.
- Greystar executives engaged with competitors to coordinate lease renewal caps and rent increases, helping set industry-wide norms that prioritized landlord profits over renters’ affordability.
User Group Collaboration: Greystar attended RealPage “user group” meetings where landlords openly discussed strategies to maintain high rents and scale back renter-friendly concessions like discounts or free months of rent.

The result was an industry-wide price alignment that effectively trapped renters by eliminating meaningful price competition between landlords.

3. Use of RealPage Software to Exploit Renters

Greystar leveraged RealPage’s software features, which were specifically designed to extract maximum rent revenue:

Elimination of Negotiation Leverage for Renters: RealPage’s pricing recommendations, fueled by aggregated competitor data, gave Greystar certainty about the highest rents tenants were likely to pay without significant risk of vacancies. This weakened renters’ ability to negotiate rent reductions or secure favorable lease terms.
Targeting Lease Expirations: Greystar used RealPage’s “lease expiration management” to time unit availability strategically, ensuring that supply remained constrained to maintain higher prices. For renters, this led to fewer opportunities to secure leases with more favorable terms during less competitive periods.
Discouraging Discounts and Concessions: RealPage pressured landlords, including Greystar, to limit renter-friendly concessions (e.g., free months or reduced fees), directly reducing affordability for tenants.

4. Economic Harm to Renters and Communities

This conduct exacerbated the housing affordability crisis in markets where Greystar operates:

Increased Rent Burden: Renters in Greystar-managed properties were often forced to spend a larger proportion of their income on rent, leaving less for essentials like food, healthcare, and transportation. This disproportionately impacted lower-income households and widened wealth disparities.
Displacement and Housing Insecurity: Artificially inflated rents likely caused displacement of vulnerable renters who could no longer afford their apartments. This destabilized communities and forced families to relocate, often with significant social and financial costs.
Erosion of Free-Market Dynamics: By opting into RealPage’s “rising tide” strategy, Greystar and its competitors prioritized profit maximization over the social obligation to provide affordable housing. This further entrenched corporate monopolistic behavior in the rental market.

5. Social and Legal Consequences

The antitrust lawsuit filed by the DOJ and multiple state attorneys general highlights how Greystar’s actions violated federal competition laws:

Antitrust Violations: Greystar’s participation in the RealPage scheme constituted alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit agreements that restrain trade and monopolistic conduct.
Lack of Corporate Accountability: Greystar’s involvement underscores the systemic failures of corporate ethics in the real estate sector, where profits were prioritized over renters’ well-being.

Broader Implications

For Communities:

This behavior likely worsened inequality in housing access, particularly in cities and neighborhoods where Greystar operates. Communities saw higher overall rent trends, with fewer protections for low-income renters.

For Workers:

Employees of property management companies may face moral dilemmas, as they are pressured to implement rent increases or deny concessions, contributing to the financial distress of tenants they interact with daily.

Public Awareness and Advocacy:

Cases like this expose the dangers of neoliberal capitalism, where the pursuit of shareholder profits undermines public welfare. They highlight the need for strong government regulation to protect renters from exploitative corporate practices.

No Corporate Social Responsibility

Greystar touts its Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) initiatives as evidence of its commitment to sustainability and community well-being. However, these efforts often ring hollow when juxtaposed with the company’s actual practices:

Greenwashing: While Greystar promotes its “Green Awards” program and LEED-certified buildings[18][21], its environmental impact is overshadowed by its relentless pursuit of profit. For instance, tenants report that basic property upkeep—let alone ambitious sustainability goals—is frequently neglected[51].
Token Philanthropy: Programs like “Greystar Giving” are marketed as altruistic endeavors but serve primarily as public relations tools to distract from the company’s exploitative practices[15].
Lack of Transparency: Despite claims of integrating ESG principles into investment decisions, Greystar has faced numerous allegations of unethical behavior, from illegal fees to anti-competitive practices[41][44].

This pattern reflects a broader trend in corporate America where social responsibility is weaponized as a marketing tool rather than a genuine commitment to change[57].

Low Wages and Poor Conditions

Greystar’s mistreatment extends beyond tenants to its workforce. Employees describe a toxic work culture characterized by low pay, high turnover rates, and inadequate training. Maintenance staff are often underpaid relative to the demands of their roles, leading to subpar service for tenants and unsafe working conditions for employees[6][51].

The company’s anti-union stance further exacerbates these issues. By suppressing collective bargaining efforts and prioritizing shareholder returns over fair wages, Greystar perpetuates the systemic exploitation that drives income inequality in America[5][32]. This dynamic aligns with neoliberal capitalism’s broader trend of prioritizing capital over labor—a model that enriches executives while leaving workers struggling to make ends meet.

Wealth Inequality and Community Erosion

Greystar’s practices contribute to the growing wealth disparity in society. As one of the largest property management firms globally, it wields significant influence over housing markets. By prioritizing luxury developments and rent hikes over affordable housing solutions, Greystar exacerbates the housing crisis in urban areas. This approach displaces long-term residents, fractures communities, and deepens socioeconomic divides[5][29].

Moreover, Greystar’s profit-driven model mirrors the monopolistic tendencies seen across industries under neoliberal capitalism:

Market Concentration: With over 857,400 units under management worldwide[41], Greystar’s dominance stifles competition and leaves tenants with few alternatives.
Privatization of Essential Services: The company’s focus on monetizing basic amenities reflects neoliberalism’s commodification of public goods—turning housing into an investment vehicle rather than a human right[27][32].

This unchecked corporate power not only undermines community stability but also erodes public trust in institutions meant to protect citizens from exploitation.

Environmental Hypocrisy

Despite its claims of environmental stewardship, Greystar’s actions often contradict its rhetoric:

Energy Inefficiency: Tenants report poorly maintained properties with outdated infrastructure that wastes energy rather than conserving it[2][55].
Missed Opportunities: While promoting green initiatives like carpooling programs or recycled materials usage[26], Greystar fails to address systemic issues such as urban sprawl or affordable housing shortages—both critical components of sustainable development.

These contradictions highlight how corporate sustainability initiatives often serve as window dressing rather than meaningful efforts to combat climate change.

Will Greystar Ever be Held Accountable?

Greystar’s track record raises serious doubts about its willingness—or ability—to reform. Like many large corporations operating under neoliberal capitalism, it faces minimal consequences for unethical behavior:

Legal Challenges: While lawsuits like the $860 million verdict against Greystar for wrongful death indicate some accountability[11], such penalties are often absorbed as the cost of doing business.
Regulatory Gaps: Weak enforcement mechanisms allow companies like Greystar to continue exploiting tenants and workers with impunity[10][27].
Profit Motive: As long as maximizing shareholder returns remains the primary goal, there is little incentive for meaningful change.

This bleak outlook underscores the need for stronger government intervention.

Policies such as rent control laws, stricter tenant protections, and increased corporate taxation could help curb Greystar’s excesses while promoting greater economic equity.

Fighting Back Against Corporate Exploitation

Greystar epitomizes the dangers posed by unregulated corporate power in today’s economy. Its relentless pursuit of profit—at the expense of tenants, workers, and communities—reflects a broader crisis within neoliberal capitalism. Addressing this crisis requires collective action:

Tenants must organize through grassroots movements to demand fair treatment and transparent practices.
Workers need stronger protections against exploitation through unionization efforts and labor law reforms.
Governments must hold corporations accountable by enforcing regulations that prioritize public welfare over private gain.

Only by challenging the systemic greed that fuels companies like Greystar can we hope to create a more equitable society where housing is treated as a right—not a commodity.

Unfortunately, Greystar is not an anomaly; it is a product of neoliberal capitalism—a system that prioritizes market efficiency over human welfare.

By treating housing as an investment vehicle rather than a basic necessity, companies like Greystar have turned homes into commodities subject to the whims of global capital markets. This model benefits shareholders while leaving tenants vulnerable to skyrocketing rents and declining living conditions. It’s not just that Greystar is exploiting its position; it’s that our economic system enables—and even incentivizes—this kind of behavior.

baker-v-greystar-management-services-lp Download

complaint U.S. et al. v. RealPage Inc.Download

US et al. v. RealPage Inc Download

lewis-v-greystar-california-inc_1 Download