Greystar, the nation's largest multi-family rental property manager, has agreed to pay $24 million to settle charges that it deceived consumers about rental costs through misleading advertising practices, federal regulators announced.
The settlement resolves allegations by the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Colorado that Greystar violated consumer protection laws by advertising artificially low rent prices while concealing mandatory monthly fees that significantly increased the actual cost of renting.
Under the agreement, Greystar will pay $23 million to the FTC for consumer refunds and $1 million to Colorado. The company must also overhaul its advertising practices to provide transparent pricing to prospective renters.
"Greystar misled consumers by advertising low rent prices and then adding mandatory fees at the end of the sales process," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "At a time when Americans are struggling to find affordable housing, the FTC is focused on monitoring the housing marketplace to ensure that competitors are meaningfully competing on price and that consumers receive transparent pricing."
The case highlights growing regulatory scrutiny of rental housing practices as affordability pressures intensify across the country. The FTC and Colorado authorities alleged that Greystar's deceptive pricing strategy violated the FTC Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint filed in January 2025, Greystar systematically misrepresented rental costs by displaying prominently advertised base rent prices that excluded several fixed, mandatory monthly fees. This practice allegedly prevented consumers from accurately comparing rental options and understanding the true cost of housing.
The deceptive advertising scheme particularly harmed consumers during their apartment search process, when accurate pricing information is crucial for making informed housing decisions. Many renters only discovered the additional mandatory fees late in the leasing process, after investing significant time and effort in pursuing specific properties.
The proposed settlement order requires comprehensive changes to Greystar's business practices. The company must refrain from misrepresenting total monthly leasing prices, fee information, and any material aspects of its rental services. When advertising base rent or partial pricing, Greystar must prominently display the total monthly cost including all mandatory fees.
Before collecting any payments, including nonrefundable application fees, the company must clearly disclose details about all fees, including their amount, purpose, and whether they are mandatory. The settlement also requires disclosure of the complete monthly leasing price before any payment is processed.
The enforcement action reflects the FTC's broader initiative to combat deceptive practices in the housing market. As rental costs continue to strain household budgets nationwide, regulators have increased focus on ensuring price transparency and fair competition among property managers.
The settlement amount of $24 million represents a significant penalty for deceptive advertising practices in the rental housing sector. The $23 million designated for consumer refunds will provide direct relief to affected renters who paid higher costs due to Greystar's misleading advertising.
Greystar's agreement to modify its advertising practices could influence industry standards for rental price disclosure. As the nation's largest multi-family property manager, the company's compliance with transparent pricing requirements may encourage similar changes among competitors.
The Commission authorized filing the stipulated final order by a 2-0 vote, demonstrating bipartisan support for the enforcement action. The FTC and Colorado filed the settlement order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, where it awaits final judicial approval.
FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson issued a separate statement regarding the settlement, though specific details of his remarks were not immediately available. The chairman's statement likely addresses the broader implications of the case for rental housing market oversight.
For consumers, the settlement provides important protections against similar deceptive practices in the rental market. The requirement for upfront disclosure of total monthly costs should help renters make more informed housing decisions and avoid unexpected fee surprises during the leasing process.
The case also establishes precedent for federal enforcement against misleading pricing in the rental housing sector. Other property management companies may face similar scrutiny if they employ comparable fee disclosure practices that obscure true rental costs from consumers.
Moving forward, the settlement requires ongoing compliance monitoring to ensure Greystar adheres to the new transparency requirements. The substantial financial penalty and operational changes send a clear message about regulatory expectations for honest pricing practices in the increasingly important rental housing market.