[fasthands9]

Right - but what percent of those large buildings are owned by the same people?

I'm not suggesting an app couldn't help coordinate prices in this instance, but I am suggesting that as long as the buildings are owned by other people they still have strong incentive to compete with each other.

If I own a building and the app suggests I raise prices, but then the units don't fill, I'm just going to lower prices.

[kube-system]

Whatever the number is, 90% of them are owned by companies that were colluding on pricing.

> If I own a building and the app suggests I raise prices, but then the units don't fill, I'm just going to lower prices.

Yes, but if everyone raises prices together, people won't just choose to be homeless. Collusion is anti-competitive because it ensures that the participants wont compete with each other on price. They all raise rates together so people are stuck: their rent went up, but so did rent everywhere.

In a competitive market, some will raise rates, some will keep them the same, some may drop them. Those differences in strategy is what creates competition. When everyone cooperates to do the same thing, it eliminates competitive pressure.