Creates a new chapter in Title 19 RCW (Sections 1–3 of the act) that makes new civil prohibitions: it forbids a landlord (or the landlord’s agent or subcontractor), in or affecting commerce, from subscribing to, contracting with, seeking to obtain, or otherwise exchanging anything of value in return for the services of a “service provider,” and it forbids a service provider, in or affecting commerce, from “coordinating” two or more landlords. Violations are declared unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition for the purpose of applying the Washington Consumer Protection Act (chapter 19.86 RCW). The bill is a new statutory chapter and creates new civil prohibitions and remedies rather than criminal penalties in the text provided. “Coordinating” is defined as a service provider collecting rental-related data from two or more landlords, private databases, or public databases and analyzing or processing that information with a system, software, algorithm, or automated process to provide recommendations about rental prices, lease renewal terms, or occupancy levels to more than one landlord. An exception excludes publication of rental price estimates that are solely based on publicly available information, equally available to all members of the public, and that do not require a contract, agreement, or license. “Service provider” means any person that performs a coordinating function; “dwelling unit,” “landlord,” and “person” are cross-referenced to RCW 64.37.010, RCW 59.18.030, and common business entity terms respectively. Enforcement is limited: only the Washington attorney general may bring an action in the name of the state or as parens patriae on behalf of residents to enforce this chapter, while any person injured by a violation may bring a civil action to recover damages pursuant to chapter 19.86 RCW. The text provided does not show an assigned chapter number within Title 19, does not include the full cross-referenced definitions from RCW 64.37.010 and RCW 59.18.030, and contains no specific effective date, deadlines, criminal penalties, or other implementation details. The bill title references prohibiting “noncompete agreements” in the rental housing market, but the extracted text does not define or expressly prohibit noncompete agreements.

If enacted, landlords and their agents could no longer pay for or use services that gather rental data from multiple landlords and then analyze it to give pricing, lease renewal, or occupancy recommendations to more than one landlord; companies that offer that kind of multi-landlord coordination would have to stop providing those coordinated pricing tools or change them so they don’t collect and analyze data across landlords. That will directly affect landlords who rely on market-pricing services and the firms that sell those services: landlords may lose access to shared pricing guidance and need to set rents and renewal terms more independently, and service providers likely would lose a revenue stream or need to redesign products to avoid the defined “coordinating” activity. Enforcement would be handled only by the Washington attorney general for state actions, but any person harmed could still sue for damages under the state consumer protection law, so affected parties face potential private litigation costs and exposure. Important details are missing from the text provided—such as how the bill addresses noncompete agreements mentioned in the title, the exact chapter number, the full cross-referenced definitions, any effective date, and whether penalties beyond damages under chapter 19.86 RCW apply—so the timing and some legal consequences remain uncertain.