FTC Prioritizes Hidden Fees in Rental Housing Markets Amidst Broader State Scrutiny of Junk Fees

On January 30, 2026, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) announced it had taken a preliminary step toward commencing a new rulemaking related to junk fees in the rental housing market. The announcement comes on the heels of the agency’s settlement with Greystar Real Estate Partners, resolving allegations that the company deceived consumers about monthly rent costs by adding hidden fees on top of advertised prices. Importantly, these developments are occurring amidst broader scrutiny of hidden fees by enforcers, particularly as a number of states have recently enacted junk fees laws that apply across industries.

This Advisory covers notable recent developments at the federal and state levels regarding enforcement and regulation concerning hidden fees. It closes with takeaways for companies that advertise goods or services with mandatory fees included in the purchase price.

FTC Focus on Rental Housing Markets

In December 2025, the FTC and the State of Colorado settled their litigation against Greystar, a large multi-family rental property manager.¹ The government alleged that Greystar misrepresented the true cost to rent its properties by displaying a deceptively low rental price that excluded several mandatory monthly fees. In addition to alleging that Greystar’s misrepresentations violated the FTC Act, the complaint asserted that Greystar’s alleged use of those misrepresentations to obtain consumers’ financial information during the rental application process violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act. Notably, the inclusion of a count under the GLB Act, a violation of which is treated as a violation of an FTC trade regulation rule, allowed the FTC to seek monetary relief in connection with that claim.² The FTC could not otherwise have done so on the basis of Greystar’s alleged violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act due to the Supreme Court’s holding in the AMG Capital Management case that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act does not authorize the agency to seek equitable monetary relief.³

To settle the case, Greystar agreed to pay $24 million. It also agreed to clearly and conspicuously display total monthly leasing prices and mandatory fees when making representations about the prices to lease its properties. In his statement about the settlement, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson explained that since misleading pricing representations in America’s rental markets are not limited to Greystar, he directed Commission staff to begin the process of proposing a rule to address unfair or deceptive fees in rental housing.⁴

FTC Commences New Rulemaking Process For Rental Housing Fees

On January 30, 2026, the FTC announced that it would be soliciting public comment on the need for a rule to prevent the imposition of deceptive or unfair fees on renters seeking long-term housing options. Echoing statements he made in connection with the Greystar settlement, Chair Ferguson highlighted how Americans have been “squeezed” by such fees and that President Trump has prioritized reducing the cost of living and affordability in the housing market.⁵

As a first step in the rulemaking process, the agency submitted a draft Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review.⁶ ANPRMs must contain a brief description of the area of inquiry being considered, the FTC’s objectives, and possible regulatory alternatives under consideration. Once OIRA review is completed, the FTC will publish the planned ANPRM in the Federal Register and seek public comment.⁷ Notably, there are many required steps thereafter under the FTC’s consumer protection rulemaking procedures before any new rule concerning fees in rental housing markets could be issued.⁸ This includes the eventual issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) setting forth the text of the proposed rule, including any regulatory alternatives. In connection with an NPRM, the FTC must allow interested parties to make written submissions and provide the opportunity for an informal hearing.⁹

While the FTC’s submission of a draft ANPRM was somewhat expected given Chair Ferguson’s statement from the Greystar settlement, this development is nonetheless noteworthy. During the last year of the Biden administration, then-Commissioner Ferguson dissented from a number of the agency’s consumer protection rulemaking activities, including the FTC’s Junk Fees rule (discussed below).¹⁰ When he was selected as Chair, Ferguson made clear that the FTC under President Trump would focus on enforcing the laws Congress has passed rather than writing them.¹¹

Fast forward to January 30th, the FTC has announced not one, but two ANPRMs, the other relating to recurring subscriptions. When announcing that he directed staff to explore a new hidden fees rule, Ferguson explained that, notwithstanding his enforcement philosophy, he has expressed support for promulgating rules “where such rules align with the agency’s traditional role as a cop on the beat.”¹² In announcing the ANPRM, Ferguson further explained that a new rule may enhance the FTC’s capacity to bring enforcement actions in this area.¹³ There is no doubt that a rule regarding hidden fees in rental markets (and the accompanying threat of civil penalties for violations) would give the FTC’s powers a boost.

The FTC’s Junk Fees Rule

This ANPRM, of course, is not the agency’s first foray into rulemaking regarding hidden fees. The FTC’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, more commonly known as the Junk Fees Rule, was finalized in December 2024 and took effect in May 2025.¹⁴ However, it only applies to short-term lodging and live-event ticketing. For those industries, the rule prohibits bait-and-switch pricing and other tactics used to hide total prices and mislead consumers about fees. The rule requires that businesses clearly and conspicuously disclose the true total price inclusive of all mandatory fees whenever they offer, display, or advertise any price of live-event tickets or short-term lodging. Some fees (such as taxes or other government charges and shipping charges) can be excluded from the total price displayed upfront, as long as they are disclosed before seeking payment.

The final rule is much more limited in scope than the rule originally proposed, which would have applied to businesses across the economy. While then-Commissioner Ferguson voted against the rule, he made clear that his objection was not on the merits, stating instead that the time “for rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC is over.”¹⁵ Notably, the agency has taken enforcement action regarding alleged junk fees against companies in numerous industries not covered by the rule.

Recent State Regulation Regarding Hidden Fees

Junk fees have also been a focus for many states, which have enacted their own laws generally requiring the disclosure of mandatory fees in the advertised price of goods and services (excluding taxes and shipping). However, unlike the FTC, some state junk fee laws are broader in scope, applying to businesses across the economy (with certain exceptions).

For example, Colorado enacted a junk fees law that took effect on January 1, 2026.¹⁶ The law broadly prohibits advertising the price of a product unless the total price (excluding government and shipping charges) is clearly and conspicuously disclosed as a single number. Fees that cannot be determined at the time of purchase (e.g., those that depend on consumer selections) do not need to be included in the total price. Colorado’s law contains specific provisions relating to the disclosure of mandatory service charges for food and beverage service establishments and additional fees charged by delivery network companies. Although the law is not limited to specific industries, it does exempt transactions that are governed by and comply with other price transparency laws (e.g., the Truth in Lending Act). It also exempts cable and broadband internet operators compliant with applicable requirements.

Massachusetts’s regulation prohibiting junk fees went into effect in September 2025.¹⁷ It requires businesses to clearly disclose the total price of a product whenever pricing information is presented to a consumer and prior to requiring a consumer to provide their personal information. The regulation defines total price as the “maximum price a consumer must pay for a [p]roduct, inclusive of all fees, charges, or other expenses” (excluding government and shipping charges). Massachusetts also requires that businesses disclose the nature, purpose, and amount of any charges that may be imposed on a transaction. While broadly applicable, the regulation does not apply to air transportation, to car manufacturers or dealers that comply with other applicable laws, to health care providers, or to the advertisement or sale of credit or securities.¹⁸

A number of other states have passed broad junk fees laws. Virgina’s law, which became effective in July 2025, contains exclusions for certain fees in connection with the purchase or lease of a car, electric and gas utilities, telecommunications services, real estate broker commissions and fees, and air transportation. Cable and broadband internet providers are exempt if compliant with other applicable laws.¹⁹ Minnesota’s law, which became effective in January 2025, generally applies to almost all industries but contains certain exclusions similar to those in the Virginia law.²⁰ And California’s SB 478, also known as the “Honest Pricing Law,” applies to the sale or lease of most goods and services that are for a consumer’s personal use.²¹ Mandatory fees charged by restaurants, bars, and other select food vendors are exempted from SB 478’s requirements so long as the fee is clearly and conspicuously displayed wherever prices are shown.²² The law also does not apply to the purchase or lease of goods or services for commercial use, or to certain other specified transactions and industries that are already subject to other laws governing pricing.

These states are not the only ones with broad junk fee laws. For example, Connecticut’s fee disclosure law goes into effect on July 1, 2026,²³ and Oregon’s recently went into effect on January 1, 2026.²⁴

Importantly, states are not just regulating in this area; they are bringing cases. For example, last year, Booking Holdings Inc. paid $9.5 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the Texas Attorney General alleging that the company deceptively marketed hotel room prices to consumers by omitting mandatory fees.²⁵ And in November of last year, the Connecticut AG filed an expanded complaint in its action against Altice/Optimum Online, alleging that the company misled Spanish-speaking consumers and collected at least $39.1 million in bait-and-switch “Network Enhancement” junk fees from Connecticut consumers.²⁶

New York City Prioritizes Junk Fees

In January 2026, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani signed an executive order directing the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) to crack down on junk fees, including through the establishment of an interagency Citywide Junk Fee Task Force. The order directs DCWP to take any appropriate actions to combat hidden junk fees, including enforcement actions and the promulgation of rules.²⁷

Takeaways

• Federal, state, and local consumer protection enforcers have continued to prioritize the failure to adequately disclose mandatory fees in connection with advertising the price of goods, services, and rental housing. Companies should also be advised that plaintiffs’ attorneys are active in the space, enforcing state laws that ban hidden fees and state unfair trade practices statutes that incorporate FTC rules (which cannot themselves be enforced by anyone other than the FTC) in their definition of an unfair trade practice. Accordingly, companies that do not adequately disclose mandatory fees can be at risk of both government enforcement actions and class action lawsuits.
• Companies in the rental housing industry should monitor any developments with respect to the FTC’s rulemaking process regarding hidden fees, including the publication of the ANPRM. This event (and the issuance of an NPRM) provide opportunities for comment from interested parties as the Commission considers the contours of any eventual rule that is promulgated.
• States are continuing to enact new junk fees laws. While some focus on specific industries like the FTC’s Junk Fees Rule, others apply more broadly to companies across industries. Accordingly, companies must stay abreast of state-level regulatory developments and carefully review new laws as they consider how to advertise prices.

Arnold & Porter regularly advises companies on compliance with federal and state consumer protection laws and on disputes arising under them. The firm also helps companies participate in rulemaking proceedings. Our Consumer Protection & Advertising Practice would be happy to assist with any questions you have regarding price advertising and the disclosure of fees.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Advisory is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.