Because RealPage’s coun- terclaims for interference with prospective economic advantage and violation of the UCL both hinge in part upon the viability of RealPage’s other counterclaims, the Court concludes by considering these counterclaims together. A. REALPAGE’S ANTITRUST COUNTER- CLAIMS RealPage brings antitrust counterclaims alleging (1) an illegal tying arrangement in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Anti- trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (‘‘Section 1’’), and the California Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code §§ 16720, 16722, 16726 & 16727 (the ‘‘Cartwright Act’’); (2) attempted mo- nopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (‘‘Section 2’’); and (3) exclusive dealing in violation of Section 1. The Court considers each in turn.

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720, 16726. As with the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act extends only to anticompetitive conduct perpetuated by multiple actors; procompetitive ventures and unilateral action cannot be the basis for a claim.