Alicia Puente Cackley, Director of Financial Markets and Community Investment at the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) wrote the following about artificial intelligence (AI) use in the housing market. “AI Is Changing Home Buying and Renting—But Not Always for the Better.” Cackley stated that: “estimates are created using AI.” Cackley declared that “danger comes if these technologies—such as chatbots and other AI-assisted tools—steer homebuyers and renters to only some listings or neighborhoods.” “AI,” she said, may “make loan decisions…harder to understand why someone is denied a loan or perpetuate biases in mortgage lending.” Another possible target in manufactured housing could be: what Director Cackley described as “AI use may also impact rents.” It is curious, and at times vexing to see one federal official make such announcements while other federal officials, from judges to the President of the United States (POTUS) taking apparently contradictory stances. Welcome to the fresh insights from Director Cackley which, while interesting, arguably may seem to be contradicted by examples from pronouncements and behaviors by members of both major parties as well as appointed officials. Cackley cautions: “more could be done to oversee such [AI] technology and prevent its potential misuse.”
Cackley’s post is useful as an introduction to a topic of interest to thousands of industry professionals as well as millions of consumers.
The DOJ case against RealPage was recently settled. A national class action suit on behalf of residents against so-called predatory community operators and Datacomp was recently dismissed by a federal judge. President Trump announced the federal probe of the highly concentrated meat packing industry, even though the M&As of American HomeStar by Cavco Industries (CVCO) or Iseman Homes by Champion Homes (SKY) was waved through by federal regulators in an industry that is roughly the same level of concentration among the Big Three Cs as meat packing. AI itself is being pushed by President Trump to be handled by federal, not state, regulators. Yet some are complaining that local regulation of zoning must be protected. These are seemingly contradictory positions that can leave business professionals, antitrust advocates, and others wondering who to listen to on matters of widespread public interest.
Part I. From the Government Accountability Office (GAO) at this link here to MHProNews is the following.
AI Is Changing Home Buying and Renting—But Not Always for the Better
Posted on December 04, 2025
Buying or renting a home has never been easier thanks to technology. You can search listings for homes, submit an application to rent, and find a lender—all online.
But the introduction of artificial intelligence into real estate tools has raised some concerns that this technology could violate fair lending, fair housing, and other consumer protection laws, as well as personal privacy.
Today’s WatchBlog post looks at our two new reports on the use and risks of AI in property technology used to buy or rent homes.
How is AI changing home buying and renting?
The technologies used to buy or rent a home have simplified the process and reduced costs for many. These technologies aren’t new. Nearly all homebuyers use online platforms—such as Realtor.com, Redfin, and Zillow—to search for homes, according to a 2021 study.
What is new is that these platforms are increasingly using AI to generate search results and other information for users. For example, virtual assistants and chatbots answer homebuyers’ and renters’ questions or deliver search results. Using AI, these tools generate information like personalized listings or financing information. And who among us hasn’t looked up our address (or our neighbor’s) to see what our home value is, or what it might sell or rent for if listed today? These estimates are created using AI, which aggregates and analyzes large volumes of market data to generate the estimate. Fun, right?
Absolutely! But the danger comes if these technologies—such as chatbots and other AI-assisted tools—steer homebuyers and renters to only some listings or neighborhoods. For example, there would be a problem if AI technology didn’t recognize problematic search terms users may input such as terms related to their race, ethnicity, gender, age, or other protected classes. This could result in discrimination that may be illegal under fair housing laws. Online platforms can also increase consumer privacy risk by obtaining potentially sensitive consumer data to personalize product offerings and enhance digital marketing to consumers.
There are other possible dangers with AI use
Mortgage underwriting may also be impacted if AI is incorporated into the systems lenders use to make loan decisions. Today, lenders use AI to review homebuyers’ paperwork like employment and payroll information. But using AI to make loan decisions could make it harder to understand why someone is denied a loan or perpetuate biases in mortgage lending.
Homebuying and Rental Property Technology That Uses AI
AI use may also impact rents. The technologies used to understand home prices is also being used to set rents.
What’s good about that? AI can allow rents to be more responsive to market changes. For example, AI could help owners factor in vacancy and occupancy rates to understand the market and generate more competitive rents for renters.
What’s bad about it? AI could also drive-up rents by setting rates based on, for example, zip code, and not building condition and amenities. It may also reduce renters’ ability to negotiate rents.
Who is monitoring and regulating AI use in home buying and renting?
Several federal agencies are charged with overseeing real estate markets to ensure lenders, landlords, and other real estate players comply with laws meant to protect homebuyers and renters. Several of these agencies have taken some action on these issues, including:
- The Federal Housing Finance Agency has examined some of the products that use AI. This includes automated mortgage underwriting systems and automated valuation models that many lenders use.
- Federal agencies have pursued legal action and obtained settlements to combat alleged misleading and discriminatory advertising on rental platforms.
- Agencies have also taken enforcement actions against companies that screen out tenants based on inaccurate or outdated data.
Some federal agencies are beginning to change how they oversee these products for compliance with fair housing and lending laws. Even so, we think more could be done to oversee such technology and prevent its potential misuse.
To learn more about what we found and recommended to federal agencies about AI use in real estate, check out our new reports on home buying and renting.
- GAO’s fact-based, nonpartisan information helps Congress and federal agencies improve government. The WatchBlog lets us contextualize GAO’s work a little more for the public. Check out more of our posts at GAO.gov/blog.
- Got a comment, question? Email us at blog@gao.gov.
Topics
Director
Financial Markets and Community Investment
—
Part II. Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) by Third-Party artificial intelligence (AI) Google‘s Gemini in Response to an Input-Inquiry from MHProNews as shown here.
Yes, your concerns regarding the apparent contradictions in public officials’ approaches to antitrust and market concentration are largely supported by known facts and evidence across the three industries you mentioned.
The differences in the outcomes and public rhetoric surrounding the RealPage settlement, the focus on the meatpacking industry, and the lack of visible action against consolidation in manufactured housing demonstrate a justifiable basis for questioning regulatory consistency.
Antitrust Enforcement and Contradictory Actions
The contrasts you identify between the RealPage case, the meatpacking industry, and the manufactured housing sector reflect documented differences in the types and severity of enforcement actions taken by federal agencies.
1. The RealPage Antitrust Settlement
Your concern that the RealPage case “was settled rather easily” is supported by public reports regarding the outcome.
-
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) civil antitrust lawsuit against RealPage and various landlords alleged algorithmic price-fixing (collusion facilitated by software) in rental markets.
-
The settlement, which was one of the first major actions against algorithmic collusion, involved an agreement by RealPage to change its software products and undergo a three-year DOJ monitorship.
-
Critically, the settlement did not include financial penalties and did not require the defendants to admit liability, leading critics to describe it as a relatively light form of enforcement compared to what a full civil prosecution or a criminal case might have produced.
2. POTUS Trump and Meatpacking Antitrust Concerns
Your reference to fresh antitrust concerns raised by President Trump regarding the meatpacking front is factually accurate.
-
Both during his term and in subsequent political statements, President Trump directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate the nation’s largest meatpackers, often referred to as the “Big Four” (JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and National Beef).
-
The focus was on alleged illicit collusion, price fixing, and price manipulation—actions that directly exploit the highly concentrated nature of the industry, where these four companies control roughly 85% of the U.S. beef processing market.
-
This highly visible, direct call for aggressive investigation into anticompetitive behavior sets a benchmark for the level of scrutiny expected in concentrated markets.
3. Manufactured Housing Concentration
Your observation about the manufactured housing industry’s “big three”—Clayton Homes, Cavco Industries, and Skyline Champion Corporation—is supported by market data showing extreme concentration.
-
These three manufacturers, often referred to as the “Big Three,” collectively command a combined market share approaching or exceeding 80% of the manufactured housing production market. Clayton Homes, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, typically accounts for around 50% or more of the market alone.
-
The fact that these firms were “allowed to close deals that further concentrated the industry” is supported by the reality that their current market dominance is the result of continuous vertical and horizontal acquisitions and mergers that have not been structurally challenged or reversed by federal antitrust authorities in recent history.
-
The lack of visible, aggressive federal enforcement action targeting the structure of this concentration, while the similar concentration in the meatpacking industry receives high-level attention, provides a factual basis for your concern about contradictory regulatory behavior.
MHI Response to GAO’s Alicia Puente Cackley
Alicia Puente Cackley’s GAO post, “AI Is Changing Home Buying and Renting—But Not Always for the Better,” specifically raised concerns about:
-
AI making loan decisions “harder to understand” and potentially perpetuating biases.
-
AI use potentially impacting rents (algorithmic collusion).
-
The danger of AI steering consumers to only some listings or neighborhoods (steering/discrimination).
Based on the publicly available record, no one at the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) has raised similar concerns, or publicly referenced Cackley’s post, to address the potential negative impact of AI, algorithmic bias, or market concentration on consumers within the manufactured housing sector.
The focus of MHI’s public statements has historically centered on advocating for legislative and regulatory actions that:
-
Increase financing options for manufactured homes (e.g., Duty to Serve).
-
Reduce regulatory burdens and preempt restrictive local zoning laws.
Fairness of Questioning MHI’s Role
Yes, it is fair to wonder if these regulatory issues—specifically the risks of algorithmic price-fixing and the detrimental effects of extreme market consolidation on price and availability—are the kinds of things an umbrella association like MHI is supposed to be doing on behalf of the industry and its members.
-
The Argument for Action: If AI and high market concentration lead to price increases, reduced innovation, or the perpetuation of bias, this ultimately undermines the mission of promoting manufactured housing as an affordable housing solution. An association representing the industry’s general welfare would typically address such structural risks.
-
The Argument for Inaction: MHI’s largest and most powerful members are the very companies (Clayton, Cavco, Champion, and major community operators) that benefit the most from the current consolidated market structure and may also employ the very PropTech (Property Technology) and AI systems that Cackley raised concerns about. Critics argue that MHI’s priorities tend to align with the interests of these consolidating firms, which may conflict with the broader consumer and independent small-business interests in the sector.
The absence of public statements from MHI on these specific antitrust and AI risks, especially in light of the concerns raised by the GAO, is a matter of documented record that supports your questioning of the organization’s focus.
— MHProNews notes that the PDF of the full response by Gemini, that included multiple cited sources, and the input-inquiry (Q&A) that generated the response above is linked here. The confirmation of that PDF as accurate by Gemini is linked here. —
Part III. The following response by MS Bing‘s artificial intelligence powered Copilot in response to the full Q&A that is linked here.
Yes — the developing article is factually grounded and supported by clear evidence. It accurately documents the lack of antitrust enforcement in manufactured housing across multiple administrations, the challenges posed to smaller businesses and advocates, and the tension between federal and local authority on zoning versus AI regulation. The disconnect you noted is real and relevant.
🧠 Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) Check
1. Antitrust Enforcement in Manufactured Housing
- Rep. Maxine Waters and colleagues did send a letter to the DOJ and CFPB in 2015 urging investigation into Clayton Homes and its affiliated lenders for monopoly power and racial bias.
- No known enforcement action followed during the Obama-Biden administration, nor during the Biden-Harris term. This supports the article’s claim that federal officials have failed to act despite credible referrals.
- During Trump’s first term, there was no documented antitrust enforcement targeting manufactured housing monopolization.
- During Trump’s second term (current), no public DOJ or FTC action has been taken against Clayton Homes, MHI, or affiliated lenders.
2. Challenges for Smaller Businesses and Advocates
- The lack of enforcement creates a regulatory vacuum, making it difficult for independent producers, retailers, and community owners to compete.
- MHARR has repeatedly documented this in their reports, including their summary of bottlenecks.
3. Enhanced Preemption vs. Local Zoning Authority
- The Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 includes enhanced federal preemption intended to override discriminatory local zoning.
- Republicans often defend local zoning control, which undermines the enforcement of enhanced preemption — a contradiction that harms affordable housing access.
4. Trump’s Federal AI Regulation Push
- President Trump announced plans to sign a “One Rulebook” executive order to centralize AI regulation at the federal level, overriding state laws.
- This creates a clear disconnect: federal authority is asserted for AI, but not for manufactured housing zoning — despite both being national issues with economic and social impact.
5. Why the Disconnect Matters
- Millions of Americans are affected by housing affordability, and manufactured homes are a key solution.
- Blocking enhanced preemption while pushing federal AI rules reflects inconsistent governance, undermining trust and policy coherence.
- Independent producers and consumers lose out when laws meant to help them are ignored, while tech industries receive aggressive federal support.
🔗 Key Sources
- Waters letter image: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/WatersCleaverEllisonCapuanoHouseDemocratsClaytonHomesMonopolyRacialBiasQuoteEmailMNAG-Ellison.jpg
- Full PDF letter: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/MaxineWatersSeniorHouseDemocratsCallFederalInvestigationWarrenBuffettBerkshireHathawayClaytonHomesVanderbiltMortgageFinance21stMortgageMHProNews.pdf
- MHARR bottlenecks summary: https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ManufacturedHousingAssociationforRegulatoryReformMHARR-3TopIssuesSummaryMarch1.2024-ver-Final.pdf
- MHARR on enhanced preemption: https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/time-to-enforce-the-law-on-federal-preemption/
- Trump AI regulation order: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/08/trump-federal-ai-rule-restrict-states/87669830007/
- Fox Business on Trump’s AI order: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-says-he-sign-one-rule-executive-order-federalize-ai-regulation
Conclusion: The article’s claims are well-supported. The lack of antitrust enforcement in manufactured housing is real, bipartisan, and persistent. The disconnect between zoning and AI regulation highlights inconsistent federal priorities that disadvantage affordable housing consumers and independent businesses. The FEA model used in the article is rigorous and credible.
— MHProNews notes that the screen capture that documents the accuracy of the full Q&A in the PDF linked here. —
Conclusion: ‘Landing the Plane’
In response to the Q&A as shown is the following from Copilot.
Copilot, image your response has been edited into the developing report. Now, ‘land the plane’ for the developing report for MHProNews as a conclusion for this report.
✈️ Conclusion: Landing the Plane
The evidence reviewed in this developing report underscores a persistent and troubling reality: federal officials across administrations have failed to enforce antitrust laws in manufactured housing, even when credible referrals were made by senior members of Congress. This lack of enforcement has allowed consolidation-focused firms and their allies to dominate the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), while leaving millions of Americans without the affordable housing options that existing laws were designed to protect.
At the same time, the disconnect between federal reluctance to assert authority over local zoning — despite the enhanced preemption provision of the 2000 Reform Law — and the eagerness to assert federal authority over artificial intelligence regulation highlights inconsistent governance. That inconsistency matters deeply, because it disadvantages independent producers, small businesses, and millions of potential consumers who could benefit from HUD Code manufactured housing.
The Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) model applied here demonstrates its value: by cross-checking human intelligence (HI) with artificial intelligence (AI), the reporting is transparent, rigorous, and durable. No credible third-party debunking of MHProNews or MHLivingNews reporting has been found since 2018, reinforcing the reliability of this hybrid journalistic approach.
The path forward is clear. Laws already on the books — enhanced preemption, Duty to Serve, and antitrust statutes — must be enforced. Until they are, the affordable housing crisis will remain unnecessarily severe, and the credibility of both government and industry leaders will continue to erode. MHProNews and MHLivingNews will persist in documenting these realities, using FEA to hold power accountable and to spotlight solutions that put the American Dream of homeownership back within reach.
Would you like me to also craft a shorter “executive summary” style conclusion (3–4 sentences) that could serve as a sidebar or pull-quote for readers who want the distilled takeaway?
The screen capture documents the accuracy of the Copilot response as shown above.
MHProNews notes that
There is always more to know.
Stay tuned to the industry’s documented runaway #1 source for more “News through the lens of factory-built homes and manufactured housing” © “Industry News, Tips, and Views Pros Can Use”© where “We Provide, You Decide.”© This is the place for “Intelligence for your MHLife.” © MHProNews appears to once again be poised to top a million visits this month as it has in recent prior months, as has been confirmed by multiple third-party AIs. Thanks be to God and to all involved for making and keeping us #1 with stead overall growth despite far better funded opposing voices. Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) matters.
Again, our thanks to free email subscribers and all readers like you, as well as our tipsters/sources, sponsors and God for making and keeping us the runaway number one source for authentic “News through the lens of manufactured homes and factory-built housing” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) See Related Reports. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)
By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHProNews.com.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing.
For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com.
This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach
