Across the United States, a growing number of renters are urging federal action to curb add-on fees that inflate housing costs and heighten eviction risks. In comments submitted to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), tenants described feeling powerless as landlords impose mandatory charges through take-it-or-leave-it lease terms.
Farah Momin, a renter in Seattle, told the FTC in April: “The rental housing market is one where consumers have little power. Landlords can impose fees through take-it-or-leave-it lease terms, and the cost/disruption of moving means that tenants may absorb unfair charges rather than leave. Federal baseline protections are needed to level this playing field.” Momin said she experienced firsthand the confusion, financial strain, and sense of powerlessness that rental junk fees create.
Of 471 public comments available for download, nearly 400 explicitly supported regulation or detailed problems with junk fees, according to a Guardian analysis. More than 60 commenters opposed or raised concerns, most representing trade groups.
Industry pushback and rising fees
Leading industry groups, including the National Apartment Association (NAA), argued in a joint statement: “Restrictions on reasonable fees create practical barriers, inflate base housing costs, and reduce access to valued resident services. Fees and charges are a necessary part of pricing structures.”
Tenants have faced a surge in fees as property management firms expand their market share. Buildings run by professional managers increased their share of the rental market by 47% in the last decade, according to a Guardian analysis of census data. Professional management is most common in complexes with 50 or more units.
Federal rulemaking efforts
The push to regulate junk fees follows years of debate and lawsuits. In 2022, the Biden administration’s FTC considered including rental housing in a broad junk fee rulemaking, but after the NAA coordinated 3,800 opposing comments, the FTC limited new rules to event tickets and short-term rentals.
The renewed process follows two FTC settlements. In 2024, Invitation Homes, the largest single-family rental landlord, agreed to a $48 million settlement over allegations of unfair junk fees. The company did not admit wrongdoing and said its practices are “industry leading.” In December, the FTC and Colorado announced a $24 million settlement with Greystar, the largest apartment owner and manager, over similar allegations. Greystar did not admit wrongdoing and called its practice of advertising base rent then adding fees a “longstanding, industrywide practice.”
Support from state attorneys general
In April, 27 state attorneys general submitted a comment urging the FTC to establish a “clear minimum federal standard” for junk fees in housing. The first public comment period closed in mid-April; officials said they planned to suggest a timeline after reviewing comments. The FTC’s previous junk fee rulemaking took two and a half years from announcement to effect.
‘Total’ pricing and utility fees
The FTC’s January rulemaking announcement echoed the Greystar settlement, which requires disclosure of a “total monthly leasing price” including base rent and all mandatory fixed fees, but not variable utility fees. These can include charges for in-unit utilities and common area utility costs divided among tenants.
The FTC also sent letters to 13 major property management software providers, warning that advertising incomplete prices could result in penalties up to $53,088 per violation. Representative Maxwell Frost, Democrat of Florida, introduced the End Junk Fees for Renters Act in 2023 and 2025, which would apply to federally backed housing and require total rent pricing. Senator Jeff Merkley introduced a companion bill; neither has Republican cosponsors.
Only a handful of states—Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Nevada—require landlords to advertise a total monthly leasing price. Another 17 states regulate certain junk charges, according to a November report by the National Consumer Law Center.
Industry stance on all-in pricing
The NAA argues that “rental housing is already highly regulated” and that fees keep communities financially stable. Greystar’s public comments support rolling fixed mandatory fees into advertised prices but oppose including variable utility fees. Local NAA affiliates argued that all-in pricing could artificially inflate costs.
Mandatory utility fees were the most common complaint among supportive comments. Many landlords use third-party “ratio utility billing services” that bill tenants via custom formulas. Most Greystar leases examined by the Guardian used Conservice, a private-equity backed firm.
Shaun Cordeiro, a behavioral economist, moved into a Greystar building on Boston Harbor in 2022. He told the Guardian that water bills based on an unseen formula didn’t match usage. When he raised the issue, management said “it all comes out in the wash.” Later, after a health crisis caused rent arrears, Greystar charged eviction and legal fees, creating a negative balance. In November 2023, Cordeiro filed a class action in federal court in Massachusetts alleging unlawful eviction fees. Greystar denied any unlawful conduct and alleged over $5,000 in unpaid rent and fees. The case is pending.
“There are so many things that we just allow to happen that we accept – this fee here, or this extra charge here or there,” Cordeiro said. “Often it’s not worth the fight. But it is.” Unless people fight back, he added, “these large corporations are just going to continue to operate as they do.”
