Scholar argues that property technology undermines housing fairness and human rights.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued several of the nation’s largest landlords for allegedly using an algorithmic platform to coordinate rent prices in January 2025. The Justice Department accused RealPage, a property management software company, of enabling owners to inflate rents across metropolitan markets. Michele Estrin Gilman of the University of Baltimore School of Law identifies the case as a vivid example of how digital systems are transforming housing—and not always for the better.
In a recent article, Gilman contends that the spread of “Proptech,” or property technology, threatens to erode fairness, privacy, and dignity in housing markets. Proptech refers to the growing use of digital tools in real estate, including automated tenant screening software, digital mortgage platforms, and smart-home devices. Although these systems are often promoted as efficient and objective, Gilman explains that they can reproduce existing inequalities and hide how algorithmic decisions may discriminate against certain people. Supporters claim that Proptech streamlines transactions and lowers costs, but Gilman finds that these technologies reinforce structural barriers and further disadvantage marginalized people.
Gilman situates her critique within international human rights law, which recognizes housing as essential to “security, peace, and dignity.” Global treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights require governments to ensure affordability, habitability, and non-discrimination. Gilman observes that, although the United States signed these documents, it has not incorporated these commitments into its domestic law. She argues that this gap leaves Americans dependent on civil rights statutes such as the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination but fails to address how digital decision-making reproduces inequity.
According to Gilman, Proptech systems embed existing biases into supposedly neutral formulas. She contends that tenant-screening software that relies on credit scores or eviction records can disqualify renters with unstable incomes or limited credit histories, disproportionately harming low-income and minority applicants. She adds that online housing advertisements reinforce segregation by targeting listings to specific demographics, echoing exclusionary patterns that civil rights laws sought to eliminate.
Gilman warns that Proptech’s influence extends beyond financial data into everyday life—even inside homes. Smart-home devices and digital entry systems constantly gather data about residents’ movements and routines. Some landlords have installed facial recognition cameras in common areas, enabling continuous tenant surveillance and eroding privacy, she notes. Gilman concludes that Proptech “lacks transparency,” leaving individuals unaware of how algorithms affect their housing opportunities or how to challenge unfair results.
Although these risks threaten privacy, equality, and autonomy, Gilman finds early signs of pushback. She points to civil rights advocates challenging algorithmic discrimination and urging regulators to require disclosure of the data that fuels automated screening. Local governments, including New York City and San Francisco, are considering restrictions on landlords’ use of facial recognition technology. Nonprofit organizations are analyzing eviction and rent data to expose structural inequities in housing markets. Gilman describes this “big data resistance” as an effort to redirect technology toward accountability and social justice rather than profit.
She acknowledges that some Proptech supporters emphasize the technology’s potential benefits. Supporters argue that automated approval processes for leases and mortgages can accelerate decisions and reduce costs. They explain that digital platforms improve access to property information and that smart-building systems enhance energy efficiency and lower maintenance expenses. Gilman concedes that technology could advance housing rights if governed responsibly. But she cautions that without oversight, efficiency becomes another route to exclusion, as automated systems replicate human prejudice through data. She calls on lawmakers to mandate algorithmic transparency, ban discriminatory data practices, and strengthen tenant protections.
Gilman argues that American housing law, designed for an analog era, has not kept pace with the digital transformation. Courts are only beginning to determine how anti-discrimination principles apply to machine-learning tools that set rent or evaluate tenants, she observes. She contends that policymakers have been slow to regulate Proptech’s growth, leaving questions of fairness to be resolved by market forces rather than public institutions.
For Gilman, the stakes extend beyond efficiency or profit. She emphasizes that housing provides the stability that anchors family and community life. Treating homes as data assets transforms a human necessity into a speculative commodity, she warns. Still, Gilman remains optimistic that rights-based advocacy can align technology with equity. She argues that if governments require transparency and protect individuals from digital exploitation, Proptech could expand access to safe and affordable housing. As Gilman cautions, unless fairness and human dignity guide innovation, Proptech’s promise of digital housing technology may become its own peril.
