Law / United States / California / City and County of San Francisco
Use and Sale of Algorithmic Devices Prohibited (Rent Ordinance Sec. 37.10C), as amended by Ord. No. 169-25
San Francisco Administrative Code (Rent Ordinance) sec. 37.10C
In force since .
An AI prohibited practices rule binding private bodies.
- How the hook was established
- express
- What it reaches
- supply
- What makes it apply
- Operator establishment, Place of effect
- Obligation class
- Prohibition
- Audit expectation
- none
What it requires
- Do not sell, license, or otherwise provide to a San Francisco landlord any device that uses nonpublic competitor rent or occupancy data to recommend rents or occupancy levels for a residential unit in San Francisco
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.
In the frameworks
- NIST AI RMF
- MAP 3.3Targeted application scope is specified and documented based on the system’s capability, established context, and AI system categorization.
- NIST AI 600-1
- GAI-RISK-08Information Integrity
- GAI-RISK-11Obscene, Degrading, and/or Abusive Content
- MIT mitigations Draft
- FINOS AIGF
- AIR-PREV-005System Acceptance Testing
- ETSI EN 304 223
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
Identifiers refer to ETSI EN 304 223 V2.1.1 (2025-12), © ETSI 2025, all rights reserved. ETSI owns the standard; no ETSI text (titles or sentences) is reproduced here. The standard is free to download from ETSI.
If you get it wrong
Private right of actionYes
Penalty structure
Civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, sought by the City Attorney under subdivision (d)(1) and available to a tenant under subdivision (d)(2) and to a qualifying tenant nonprofit under subdivision (d)(3). Each month a violation exists or continues, and each dwelling unit for which a landlord used the device, is a separate violation under subdivision (b).
- Rule
- Per violation only
- As of
- Currency
- USD
- Per violation unit
- Violation
- Per violation amount
- 1,000
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
The City Attorney, by civil action under section 37.10C(d)(1); a tenant, by private civil action under section 37.10C(d)(2) for a landlord's use of an algorithmic device; and a tax-exempt nonprofit whose primary mission is protecting the rights of tenants in San Francisco, under section 37.10C(d)(3).
Settledness
- As of
- Open questions
- Does a product that recommends rents from a landlord's own leases alone use "non-public competitor data" under Rent Ordinance section 37.10C(c)(2), where the definition reaches information "derived from or otherwise provided by another person that competes in the same market or a related market"?
- Does an aggregated report of existing rental data stay within exclusion (c)(1)(A) of Rent Ordinance section 37.10C when a landlord uses it to choose rents, given that the exclusion applies where the report "does not recommend rents or occupancy levels for future leases"?
What it makes you log
Logging duty
The Rent Ordinance prohibits selling or using an algorithmic device and sets civil remedies for a violation. It states no duty to create, keep, or produce on demand any record of rents set, devices used, or data shared.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
It is unlawful to sell, license, or otherwise provide to a San Francisco landlord an algorithmic device, commonly known as revenue management software, that uses nonpublic competitor rent or occupancy data to recommend rents or occupancy levels for a residential unit, and separately unlawful for a landlord to use such a device. Each month of use and each affected unit is a separate violation.
A tenant, the City Attorney, or a nonprofit with a primary mission of protecting San Francisco tenants may sue for damages, injunctive relief, or civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app makes housing decisions.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .