The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comment on an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to address unfair or deceptive rental housing fee practices, including hidden mandatory fees not disclosed in advertised rent. The proposed rule would require clear disclosure of total rent and all associated fees, and would allow the FTC to seek civil penalties for violations. Past FTC enforcement actions against Invitation Homes and Greystar Real Estate Partners resulted in $48 million and $24 million settlements, respectively, for deceptive rent advertising practices.
In-house legal teams at rental housing providers, property management companies, and related vendors should review lease agreements, advertising contracts, and service provider agreements to ensure compliance with potential FTC rules on rental fee transparency. Lease agreements must include clear, conspicuous disclosures of all mandatory fees (application, security deposit, monthly recurring fees) and the total rent including all charges. Advertising contracts should prohibit misleading rent advertisements that exclude mandatory fees, and clauses related to fee refundability, optionality, and recurrence should be updated to align with proposed disclosure requirements. Vendor agreements with property management software providers should ensure fee disclosure features comply with the anticipated rule.
Entity
No specific entity targeted
Industry
Real EstateOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/03/ftc-seeks-public-comment-proposed-rulemaking-regarding-unfair-or-deceptive-rental-housing-fee
FTC 2026 0266 0001
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2026-0266-0001
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"FTC Seeks Public Comment on a Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Unfair or Deceptive Rental Housing Fee Practices"
"March 12, 2026"
"Federal Trade Commission"
"Invitation Homes, the largest single-family home rental housing provider in the country"
"Unfair and deceptive rental housing fee practices violate federal law."
"violated the FTC Act by, among other things, excluding mandatory monthly fees from the advertised rent."
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.