Penalty Amount
$48,000,000
Consumers Affected
444,131
Consumer fraud case where the FTC settled with Invitation Homes for deceiving renters with undisclosed fees and unlawful charges, including hidden fees and unfair security deposit withholdings. The company must pay over $47.2 million in refunds to affected consumers and change its leasing practices.
Invitation Homes must pay $48 million in consumer refunds, clearly disclose lease prices, establish fair security deposit policies, cease deceptive practices, and comply with a consent order.
In-house legal teams at real estate and property management companies should review residential lease agreements to ensure all fees (including smart home technology, utility management, and other ancillary services) are clearly disclosed upfront in plain language. Vendor contracts with service providers (e.g., smart home tech, utility management, deposit refund administrators) should include explicit prohibitions on undisclosed fees and requirements to itemize all charges. Security deposit handling procedures and related contracts should be updated to align with fair refund policies, explicitly excluding normal wear and tear from deductible damages and prohibiting charges for pre-existing damage or renovations. Lease clauses should be revised to remove deceptive fee structures and ensure full compliance with FTC deceptive practices standards.
Entity
Invitation Homes
Industry
Real EstateOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/03/ftc-sends-checks-totaling-more-472-million-consumers-deceived-invitation-homes-undisclosed-fees
ftc takes action against invitation homes deceiving renters
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-takes-action-against-invitation-homes-deceiving-renters-charging-junk-fees-withholding-security
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Invitation Homes"
"turn over $48 million"
"deceiving applicants about lease costs, charging renters undisclosed fees, failing to inspect homes before residents moved in, and unfairly withholding tenants’ security deposits when they moved out."
The FTC referred a complaint against REPS & Company Inc. and company executives, alleging they bypassed ticket-issuer security controls and purchasing limits to acquire millions of tickets for resale. The complaint was filed by the Department of Justice, and the case will be decided by the court; the press release does not report a penalty or other remedy imposed.
The FTC sued Digital Forensics Corporation LLC and affiliated defendants, alleging they misled sextortion victims with promises of investigative and monitoring services that often were not provided, and used fake positive reviews. A federal court granted the FTC’s request to temporarily halt the defendants’ activities; the complaint remains for the court to decide.
The FTC alleged that Greenway Auto Group advertised vehicle prices thousands of dollars below the amounts consumers actually paid and used mailers falsely suggesting recipients had won cash prizes. Greenway agreed to an order requiring transparent pricing and prohibiting deceptive prize mailers and other misrepresentations; the press release does not state a monetary penalty.
The FTC sent warning letters to 24 large healthcare services companies, cautioning that incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely pricing information for scheduled medical care may be unfair or deceptive. The letters urge recipients to review their price-disclosure practices and take corrective action; they announce no fine or formal order.
$1.9M
The FTC alleged that Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC made deceptive and unsubstantiated claims about the Premier Martial Arts franchise opportunity and violated the Franchise Rule. The proposed settlements require the companies to pay a combined $1.85 million to compensate franchisees, prohibit certain misrepresentations, and require Franchise Rule compliance; certain franchisees may also cancel their agreements without penalty.
The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.