United States of America, et al. v. RealPage, Inc., et al.; Response of the United States to Public Comments

he full relief that [the] United States sought in its complaint.'' Hewlett Packard Enter., 2026 WL 2349970, at *17. The United States' predictions about the efficacy of the remedy are to be afforded deference by the Court. See, e.g., Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (recognizing courts should give ``due respect to the Justice Department's . . . view of the nature of its case''); United States v. Iron Mountain, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d 146, 152-53 (D.D.C. 2016) (``In evaluating objections to settlement agreements under the Tunney Act, a court must be mindful that [t]he government need not prove that the settlements will perfectly remedy the alleged antitrust harms[;] it need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms.'') (internal citations omitted); United States v. Republic Servs., Inc., 723 F. Supp. 2d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2010) (noting ``the deferential review to which the government's proposed remedy is accorded''); United States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (``A district court must accord due respect to the government's prediction as to the effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, and its view of the nature of the case''). In determining whether a proposed settlement is in the public interest, a district court ``is not permitted to reject the pro