The FTC Is Coming for ‘Mandatory’ Rent Add‑Ons in 2026—But Here’s the Loophole That Could Keep Your ‘$1,995 Apartment’ at $2,245
The FTC is signaling a crackdown on drip-priced apartment fees—but as of April 26, 2026, there’s no finalized nationwide rule for long-term leases. Enforcement is real, and the “total rent” battle is just beginning.
By TheMurrow Editorial
April 26, 2026
Key Points
- 1Know the timeline: the FTC launched a rental-fee ANPRM in March 2026, but no finalized nationwide apartment-fee ban exists yet.
- 2Separate the rules: the 2024 FTC “junk fees” rule covers tickets and short-term lodging—not 12-month apartment leases.
- 3Follow the enforcement: Greystar’s $24M settlement signals the FTC may treat late-disclosed mandatory fees as deceptive under existing law.
Apartment hunters have learned to read listings like contracts. The advertised rent is only the opening bid. The real price arrives later—after you’ve paid an application fee, after you’ve rearranged your commute in your head, after you’ve imagined your furniture under those high windows.
That “later” can be surprisingly expensive. A unit marketed at $1,995 may quietly become $2,245 once the mandatory “package concierge,” “valet trash,” “pest control,” and “utility administration” fees appear. The numbers vary. The pattern doesn’t.
The federal government is now openly weighing whether that pattern should be illegal by rule, not just by lawsuit. On March 12, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission launched an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) titled “Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Rental Housing Fee Practices.” It was published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2026 (FR No. 2026‑04907), and the public comment period closed April 13, 2026.
Here’s the key point many headlines blur: there is no finalized FTC ban in effect—yet—for “mandatory rent add-ons” in long-term apartment leases as of April 26, 2026. What exists is a public, formal signal that the FTC is considering a rule—and a track record showing it’s already suing major landlords over the same behaviors.
“The fight isn’t over whether fees exist. It’s over whether renters get the real price before they pay to play.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
What’s actually happening in 2026: a proposal, not a nationwide apartment-fee ban
The most common misconception in 2026 is that the FTC has already “banned junk fees” in apartment rentals. That’s not accurate. The FTC has begun the earliest stage of a possible rulemaking for long-term rental housing fees, and it has asked the public what a rule should look like.
The agency’s March 2026 ANPRM focuses on practices across the full lease lifecycle—from application to move-out—with special attention to the way many listings advertise a base rent that omits mandatory charges. In its press release announcing the ANPRM, the FTC argues that the market is full of “unfair or deceptive rental housing fee practices,” and that enforcement actions alone haven’t stopped the problem.
Two dates matter for readers tracking whether a rule is imminent:
- March 12, 2026: ANPRM posted by the FTC.
- March 13, 2026: ANPRM published in the Federal Register (FR No. 2026‑04907).
- April 13, 2026: Public comment period closed.
ANPRMs are not final rules. They are the government’s way of asking: what’s happening, how big is it, how should we define it, and what would a workable rule look like? The FTC’s own framing matters here. The agency is explicit that case-by-case enforcement hasn’t fully solved the issue, and it’s exploring whether a rule would be more effective—one that could unlock civil penalties and make consumer redress easier if adopted.
The agency’s March 2026 ANPRM focuses on practices across the full lease lifecycle—from application to move-out—with special attention to the way many listings advertise a base rent that omits mandatory charges. In its press release announcing the ANPRM, the FTC argues that the market is full of “unfair or deceptive rental housing fee practices,” and that enforcement actions alone haven’t stopped the problem.
Two dates matter for readers tracking whether a rule is imminent:
- March 12, 2026: ANPRM posted by the FTC.
- March 13, 2026: ANPRM published in the Federal Register (FR No. 2026‑04907).
- April 13, 2026: Public comment period closed.
ANPRMs are not final rules. They are the government’s way of asking: what’s happening, how big is it, how should we define it, and what would a workable rule look like? The FTC’s own framing matters here. The agency is explicit that case-by-case enforcement hasn’t fully solved the issue, and it’s exploring whether a rule would be more effective—one that could unlock civil penalties and make consumer redress easier if adopted.
“A proposal isn’t a ban. But it’s also not a shrug.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
Why the “no rule yet” nuance still matters to renters
Renters shouldn’t mistake the absence of a final rule for the absence of risk—or for the absence of federal attention. Landlords can still face legal exposure under existing law when pricing practices cross the line into deception or unfairness. The FTC has shown it’s willing to treat “base rent now, mandatory fees later” as precisely that in the right fact pattern.
At the same time, renters should be wary of anyone promising that “the FTC banned it” and therefore no action is needed. The protections and remedies you have today depend on the lease, the advertising, your state law, and whether enforcement agencies take interest—not on a nationwide rental-fee rule that does not yet exist.
At the same time, renters should be wary of anyone promising that “the FTC banned it” and therefore no action is needed. The protections and remedies you have today depend on the lease, the advertising, your state law, and whether enforcement agencies take interest—not on a nationwide rental-fee rule that does not yet exist.
The “junk fees” rule you heard about isn’t your apartment lease
Part of the confusion comes from an actual, finalized FTC rule—but it’s aimed elsewhere.
In December 2024, the FTC announced a bipartisan final rule commonly referred to as the “Junk Fees Rule.” It targets live-event tickets and short-term lodging (hotels and similar). The basic requirement is straightforward: businesses must disclose the total price up front, including mandatory fees. The rule does not ban fee amounts; it polices how prices are presented.
The FTC’s own business guidance makes the boundary plain: the 2024 junk fees rule does not cover long-term rental housing. So if you’re signing a 12-month apartment lease, you are not automatically protected by the same sector-specific rule that governs ticketing and hotel pricing.
That distinction is more than technical. It tells you how the FTC is thinking.
- For tickets and short-term lodging, the FTC moved to a final rule.
- For long-term rental housing, the FTC is still at the ANPRM stage—gathering information and building a case for what a rule should require, and how it would be enforced.
The overlap is philosophical: both efforts focus on drip pricing—advertising one price and revealing mandatory charges later. The difference is legal posture and timing.
In December 2024, the FTC announced a bipartisan final rule commonly referred to as the “Junk Fees Rule.” It targets live-event tickets and short-term lodging (hotels and similar). The basic requirement is straightforward: businesses must disclose the total price up front, including mandatory fees. The rule does not ban fee amounts; it polices how prices are presented.
The FTC’s own business guidance makes the boundary plain: the 2024 junk fees rule does not cover long-term rental housing. So if you’re signing a 12-month apartment lease, you are not automatically protected by the same sector-specific rule that governs ticketing and hotel pricing.
That distinction is more than technical. It tells you how the FTC is thinking.
- For tickets and short-term lodging, the FTC moved to a final rule.
- For long-term rental housing, the FTC is still at the ANPRM stage—gathering information and building a case for what a rule should require, and how it would be enforced.
The overlap is philosophical: both efforts focus on drip pricing—advertising one price and revealing mandatory charges later. The difference is legal posture and timing.
The takeaway for readers
If you’re searching “FTC rent add-on ban,” you’re likely mixing two separate threads:
1) A final rule (tickets/hotels/short-term lodging) requiring up-front total price disclosure, and
2) A proposed rulemaking process for long-term rental housing fees that, as of April 26, 2026, has not produced a final rule.
Understanding that split helps renters ask smarter questions—and helps journalists hold sources accountable when they imply the law is already settled.
1) A final rule (tickets/hotels/short-term lodging) requiring up-front total price disclosure, and
2) A proposed rulemaking process for long-term rental housing fees that, as of April 26, 2026, has not produced a final rule.
Understanding that split helps renters ask smarter questions—and helps journalists hold sources accountable when they imply the law is already settled.
The FTC is already acting: what the Greystar settlement says about “drip pricing” in apartments
Even without a rental-fee-specific rule, the FTC has used its existing authority to target alleged deception in rental pricing. The most striking example is the Greystar case—big enough to get the attention of the entire multifamily industry.
On December 2, 2025, the FTC and the State of Colorado announced a settlement with Greystar that required $24 million in total payments: $23 million to the FTC for refunds and $1 million to Colorado. That’s not a warning letter. That’s a penalty with weight.
According to the FTC’s announcement, the core allegation was simple: Greystar advertised deceptively low monthly rent by excluding fixed, mandatory monthly fees. In some instances, the fees were allegedly disclosed only after renters paid a non-refundable application fee or holding deposit, or later in a long lease process—after the renter’s practical ability to walk away had narrowed.
Colorado’s materials described examples of the types of recurring fees at issue, including:
- Pest control
- Valet trash
- Package concierge
- Utility administration fees
- Amenities
The FTC also described forward-looking requirements, including providing fee details—amount, purpose, and whether mandatory or optional—before taking payment, and disclosing the total monthly leasing price.
On December 2, 2025, the FTC and the State of Colorado announced a settlement with Greystar that required $24 million in total payments: $23 million to the FTC for refunds and $1 million to Colorado. That’s not a warning letter. That’s a penalty with weight.
According to the FTC’s announcement, the core allegation was simple: Greystar advertised deceptively low monthly rent by excluding fixed, mandatory monthly fees. In some instances, the fees were allegedly disclosed only after renters paid a non-refundable application fee or holding deposit, or later in a long lease process—after the renter’s practical ability to walk away had narrowed.
Colorado’s materials described examples of the types of recurring fees at issue, including:
- Pest control
- Valet trash
- Package concierge
- Utility administration fees
- Amenities
The FTC also described forward-looking requirements, including providing fee details—amount, purpose, and whether mandatory or optional—before taking payment, and disclosing the total monthly leasing price.
“When a fee is mandatory, it’s part of the price—whether the listing admits it or not.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
$24 million
Total payments in the Greystar settlement announced Dec. 2, 2025: $23M for FTC refunds plus $1M to Colorado.
Why this case matters beyond Greystar
The settlement functions as an enforcement signal. The FTC is saying the agency can treat certain forms of rental-fee drip pricing as unlawful now, under existing standards, even before any new rule is finalized.
For renters, the practical implication is that the most aggressive pricing tactics carry real legal risk for landlords—especially when fees are unavoidable and only disclosed after the renter has paid money or invested time.
For the industry, the implication is just as clear: fee creativity isn’t the main problem; fee concealment is.
For renters, the practical implication is that the most aggressive pricing tactics carry real legal risk for landlords—especially when fees are unavoidable and only disclosed after the renter has paid money or invested time.
For the industry, the implication is just as clear: fee creativity isn’t the main problem; fee concealment is.
Invitation Homes and the single-family market: the same fight, different footprint
Apartment towers aren’t the whole rental economy. The single-family rental market has grown into its own ecosystem of professionalized leasing, standardized fees, and large-scale operators. The FTC has shown it’s watching that side too.
In September 2024, the FTC announced an action against Invitation Homes, alleging deceptive pricing and junk fees, along with issues involving security deposits. The settlement included requirements related to advertising and disclosures—specifically, requirements tied to including mandatory monthly fees in the advertised rental price and stating whether fees are mandatory.
Two things stand out about the Invitation Homes action when paired with Greystar:
- The FTC is applying similar scrutiny across multifamily and single-family giants.
- The agency’s focus remains tightly aligned with consumer experience: the harm isn’t merely that fees exist; it’s that renters encounter them late, after making costly commitments.
In September 2024, the FTC announced an action against Invitation Homes, alleging deceptive pricing and junk fees, along with issues involving security deposits. The settlement included requirements related to advertising and disclosures—specifically, requirements tied to including mandatory monthly fees in the advertised rental price and stating whether fees are mandatory.
Two things stand out about the Invitation Homes action when paired with Greystar:
- The FTC is applying similar scrutiny across multifamily and single-family giants.
- The agency’s focus remains tightly aligned with consumer experience: the harm isn’t merely that fees exist; it’s that renters encounter them late, after making costly commitments.
Multiple perspectives: why operators defend fees—and why regulators don’t buy the presentation
Landlords and property managers often argue that certain recurring fees cover real services and rising operating costs. Some fees are tied to vendor contracts and building logistics. Operators also argue that itemizing can make costs transparent.
Regulators, however, tend to fixate on a different question: if a fee is fixed and mandatory, why isn’t it included in the price the renter uses to compare options? The FTC’s enforcement posture suggests it views the omission itself as a potentially deceptive act—especially when renters only learn the real monthly cost after paying non-refundable amounts.
Regulators, however, tend to fixate on a different question: if a fee is fixed and mandatory, why isn’t it included in the price the renter uses to compare options? The FTC’s enforcement posture suggests it views the omission itself as a potentially deceptive act—especially when renters only learn the real monthly cost after paying non-refundable amounts.
What the FTC’s 2026 rental-fee ANPRM is really about: “total rent” and the full lease lifecycle
The March 2026 ANPRM is not just about the listing page. The FTC frames rental fees as a lifecycle problem—one that can surface at every stage:
- Application and screening
- Holding deposits and move-in charges
- Monthly “mandatory” recurring fees
- Move-out fees and deductions
Within that broader frame, the ANPRM highlights the practice renters recognize immediately: advertised rent that omits mandatory charges. The Federal Register notice (FR No. 2026‑04907) signals the FTC is exploring whether a rule should require clear, conspicuous disclosure of a “total rent”—a number that would include mandatory fees.
The ANPRM also makes an institutional argument. The FTC says case-by-case enforcement hasn’t fully solved the issue, and it’s exploring whether a rule would be more effective—especially because a finalized rule could enable civil penalties and streamline redress.
That’s a significant escalation in potential consequences, even if it’s not yet the law.
- Application and screening
- Holding deposits and move-in charges
- Monthly “mandatory” recurring fees
- Move-out fees and deductions
Within that broader frame, the ANPRM highlights the practice renters recognize immediately: advertised rent that omits mandatory charges. The Federal Register notice (FR No. 2026‑04907) signals the FTC is exploring whether a rule should require clear, conspicuous disclosure of a “total rent”—a number that would include mandatory fees.
The ANPRM also makes an institutional argument. The FTC says case-by-case enforcement hasn’t fully solved the issue, and it’s exploring whether a rule would be more effective—especially because a finalized rule could enable civil penalties and streamline redress.
That’s a significant escalation in potential consequences, even if it’s not yet the law.
Why a “total rent” concept changes the market—even before any final rule
Markets run on comparison shopping. If two apartments are listed at $1,950 but one has $200 in mandatory fees, the market is not functioning as advertised.
A total-rent disclosure regime would change the basic unit of comparison. It would also reduce the leverage landlords gain from late disclosures—when renters have already sunk time, money, and emotional bandwidth into one option.
Critics may argue that landlords will simply rename charges or restructure pricing. That’s possible. But the direction of travel is clear: the FTC is trying to make the “real number” show up earlier.
A total-rent disclosure regime would change the basic unit of comparison. It would also reduce the leverage landlords gain from late disclosures—when renters have already sunk time, money, and emotional bandwidth into one option.
Critics may argue that landlords will simply rename charges or restructure pricing. That’s possible. But the direction of travel is clear: the FTC is trying to make the “real number” show up earlier.
The money question: what counts as a “key statistic” in a fee-driven rental market
Readers deserve numbers, not vibes. The challenge is that fee practices vary widely by market and operator, and the FTC’s 2026 ANPRM is about gathering evidence rather than publishing a single national estimate.
Still, the enforcement record gives us several hard, contextual statistics:
- $24 million total payments in the Greystar settlement announced Dec. 2, 2025 (including $23 million for FTC refunds and $1 million to Colorado). That figure signals the scale regulators attach to allegedly deceptive rent advertising.
- Two enforcement milestones in two years targeting large landlords: Invitation Homes (Sept. 2024) and Greystar (Dec. 2025). The pace suggests the FTC sees housing fees as a priority area for drip pricing enforcement.
- Three key dates in the 2026 rulemaking timeline: March 12, 2026 (ANPRM posted), March 13, 2026 (Federal Register publication, FR No. 2026‑04907), and April 13, 2026 (comment period closed). Those dates matter because they mark the transition from agency interest to formal process.
Those aren’t abstract figures. They describe a federal agency building a record, backed by real cases and real money, aimed at a pricing pattern that shapes how millions of renters shop.
Still, the enforcement record gives us several hard, contextual statistics:
- $24 million total payments in the Greystar settlement announced Dec. 2, 2025 (including $23 million for FTC refunds and $1 million to Colorado). That figure signals the scale regulators attach to allegedly deceptive rent advertising.
- Two enforcement milestones in two years targeting large landlords: Invitation Homes (Sept. 2024) and Greystar (Dec. 2025). The pace suggests the FTC sees housing fees as a priority area for drip pricing enforcement.
- Three key dates in the 2026 rulemaking timeline: March 12, 2026 (ANPRM posted), March 13, 2026 (Federal Register publication, FR No. 2026‑04907), and April 13, 2026 (comment period closed). Those dates matter because they mark the transition from agency interest to formal process.
Those aren’t abstract figures. They describe a federal agency building a record, backed by real cases and real money, aimed at a pricing pattern that shapes how millions of renters shop.
$23 million
Portion of the Greystar settlement directed to the FTC for refunds, per the FTC/Colorado announcement.
FR No. 2026‑04907
Federal Register identifier for the FTC’s March 2026 ANPRM on “Unfair or Deceptive Rental Housing Fee Practices.”
What renters can infer from these numbers
A $24 million settlement doesn’t prove every fee is illegal. It does show that when the FTC believes renters were pulled in by a low advertised rent and then hit with mandatory add-ons, the agency is willing to demand substantial refunds and structural changes.
It also suggests a practical reality: even before a rule exists, the riskiest behavior is not “charging for services.” The riskiest behavior is “advertising a price you don’t actually offer.”
It also suggests a practical reality: even before a rule exists, the riskiest behavior is not “charging for services.” The riskiest behavior is “advertising a price you don’t actually offer.”
Practical takeaways: how to protect yourself when the listing isn’t the full price
Regulators can take years to finalize rules. Your lease cycle can turn over twice in that time. Renters need tactics that work now—within the current reality of partial disclosures and late-arriving fee schedules.
What to ask for—before you pay any application or holding fee
Before paying anything non-refundable, ask the property manager (in writing if possible) for:
- Total monthly leasing price: base rent plus all mandatory monthly fees
- A list of each fee with amount and purpose
- Confirmation of which charges are optional vs required
- Any one-time move-in or administrative charges
The Greystar settlement description underscores why timing matters: the FTC highlighted situations where fees were disclosed only after renters paid non-refundable amounts. Don’t treat the application as the start of price clarity; treat it as the deadline.
- Total monthly leasing price: base rent plus all mandatory monthly fees
- A list of each fee with amount and purpose
- Confirmation of which charges are optional vs required
- Any one-time move-in or administrative charges
The Greystar settlement description underscores why timing matters: the FTC highlighted situations where fees were disclosed only after renters paid non-refundable amounts. Don’t treat the application as the start of price clarity; treat it as the deadline.
Ask for this before paying anything non-refundable
- ✓Total monthly leasing price (base rent + all mandatory monthly fees)
- ✓Each fee listed with amount and purpose
- ✓Written confirmation of which charges are optional vs required
- ✓Any one-time move-in or administrative charges
How to compare apartments honestly
When building a shortlist, create your own “total rent” number:
1) advertised base rent
2) + mandatory recurring fees (trash, pest, package, amenities, admin)
3) + predictable monthly add-ons you can’t avoid in that building (if disclosed)
The FTC’s direction—both in enforcement and in its ANPRM—supports the idea that comparisons should turn on the total monthly cost, not the marketing number.
1) advertised base rent
2) + mandatory recurring fees (trash, pest, package, amenities, admin)
3) + predictable monthly add-ons you can’t avoid in that building (if disclosed)
The FTC’s direction—both in enforcement and in its ANPRM—supports the idea that comparisons should turn on the total monthly cost, not the marketing number.
Build your own “total rent” for comparisons
- 1.Start with the advertised base rent
- 2.Add all mandatory recurring fees (trash, pest, package, amenities, admin)
- 3.Add predictable monthly add-ons you can’t avoid in that building (if disclosed)
What to do if the price changes late
If mandatory fees appear late in the process, ask:
- When were these fees first disclosed to me?
- Are they in the advertisement, the online listing, or only in the lease?
- Can the property provide a written explanation of why the advertised price didn’t include mandatory charges?
Even if you ultimately walk away, you’ll have a record. If you don’t walk away, you’ll at least know you’re negotiating in reality, not in an ad.
- When were these fees first disclosed to me?
- Are they in the advertisement, the online listing, or only in the lease?
- Can the property provide a written explanation of why the advertised price didn’t include mandatory charges?
Even if you ultimately walk away, you’ll have a record. If you don’t walk away, you’ll at least know you’re negotiating in reality, not in an ad.
Key Insight
Don’t treat the application as the start of price clarity; treat it as the deadline. Get total monthly leasing price and mandatory fees in writing first.
Where this goes next: a rulemaking path with real stakes—and real opposition
The ANPRM stage is the start of a process, not the end. The comment period for the FTC’s 2026 rental-fee ANPRM closed on April 13, 2026, which means the agency now has a record to review and choices to make.
If the FTC proceeds toward a proposed rule and eventually a final rule, it will face pressure from multiple sides:
- Consumer advocates who want the “total rent” number to be mandatory, standardized, and prominent.
- Industry groups and operators who may argue that housing is locally regulated, operational costs are complex, and itemized fees reflect real services.
- Renters and local governments who see late fee disclosure as a direct driver of distrust—and a quiet tax on mobility.
The FTC has already telegraphed a core institutional belief: relying only on lawsuits hasn’t solved the problem. The agency is asking whether a rule would do better.
A sober reading suggests two things can be true at once. Many fees are tied to real services. Many renters still experience the pricing as deceptive because the “real rent” arrives too late to be a meaningful choice.
The long-term question isn’t whether fees will exist. The question is whether the market will be forced to quote the real price up front—before renters pay, plan, and commit.
If the FTC proceeds toward a proposed rule and eventually a final rule, it will face pressure from multiple sides:
- Consumer advocates who want the “total rent” number to be mandatory, standardized, and prominent.
- Industry groups and operators who may argue that housing is locally regulated, operational costs are complex, and itemized fees reflect real services.
- Renters and local governments who see late fee disclosure as a direct driver of distrust—and a quiet tax on mobility.
The FTC has already telegraphed a core institutional belief: relying only on lawsuits hasn’t solved the problem. The agency is asking whether a rule would do better.
A sober reading suggests two things can be true at once. Many fees are tied to real services. Many renters still experience the pricing as deceptive because the “real rent” arrives too late to be a meaningful choice.
The long-term question isn’t whether fees will exist. The question is whether the market will be forced to quote the real price up front—before renters pay, plan, and commit.
1) Did the FTC ban mandatory apartment fees in 2026?
No. As of April 26, 2026, there is no finalized FTC rule banning mandatory add-on fees for long-term apartment rentals. The FTC launched an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on March 12, 2026, published March 13, 2026 (FR No. 2026‑04907), and the comment period closed April 13, 2026. That process could lead to a rule later, but it hasn’t yet.
2) Is the FTC “junk fees” rule the same thing as apartment rent fees?
No. The FTC’s December 2024 final “junk fees” rule applies to live-event tickets and short-term lodging. The FTC’s own guidance states it does not cover long-term rental housing. Apartment lease fees are being addressed separately through the 2026 ANPRM and through case-by-case enforcement actions.
3) What has the FTC actually done to landlords so far?
The FTC has pursued enforcement actions under existing authority. Two prominent examples: Invitation Homes (Sept. 2024) and Greystar (Dec. 2, 2025). The Greystar settlement required $24 million in payments, including $23 million for FTC refunds and $1 million to Colorado, along with changes to fee disclosure practices.
4) What kinds of fees are regulators focusing on?
The enforcement actions and Colorado materials around Greystar referenced recurring charges such as pest control, valet trash, package concierge, utility administration fees, and amenities—especially when they are fixed and mandatory but omitted from advertised rent. The core concern is late disclosure that prevents meaningful comparison shopping.
5) What is the FTC considering in the 2026 rental-fee rulemaking?
The FTC’s ANPRM asks for public input on “unfair or deceptive rental housing fee practices” across the lease lifecycle. A central concept under consideration is requiring clear, conspicuous disclosure of a “total rent” figure that includes mandatory fees, rather than advertising only a base rent and revealing unavoidable add-ons later.
6) If a fee is mandatory, does it have to be in the advertised rent today?
There is no single nationwide rule requiring that across all long-term rentals as of April 2026. However, the FTC’s enforcement actions indicate the agency may treat
T
About the Author
TheMurrow Editorial is a writer for TheMurrow covering lifestyle.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the FTC ban mandatory apartment fees in 2026?
No. As of April 26, 2026, there is no finalized FTC rule banning mandatory add-on fees for long-term apartment rentals. The FTC launched an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on March 12, 2026, published March 13, 2026 (FR No. 2026‑04907), and the comment period closed April 13, 2026. That process could lead to a rule later, but it hasn’t yet.
Is the FTC “junk fees” rule the same thing as apartment rent fees?
No. The FTC’s December 2024 final “junk fees” rule applies to live-event tickets and short-term lodging. The FTC’s own guidance states it does not cover long-term rental housing. Apartment lease fees are being addressed separately through the 2026 ANPRM and through case-by-case enforcement actions.
What has the FTC actually done to landlords so far?
The FTC has pursued enforcement actions under existing authority. Two prominent examples: Invitation Homes (Sept. 2024) and Greystar (Dec. 2, 2025). The Greystar settlement required $24 million in payments, including $23 million for FTC refunds and $1 million to Colorado, along with changes to fee disclosure practices.
What kinds of fees are regulators focusing on?
The enforcement actions and Colorado materials around Greystar referenced recurring charges such as pest control, valet trash, package concierge, utility administration fees, and amenities—especially when they are fixed and mandatory but omitted from advertised rent. The core concern is late disclosure that prevents meaningful comparison shopping.
What is the FTC considering in the 2026 rental-fee rulemaking?
The FTC’s ANPRM asks for public input on “unfair or deceptive rental housing fee practices” across the lease lifecycle. A central concept under consideration is requiring clear, conspicuous disclosure of a “total rent” figure that includes mandatory fees, rather than advertising only a base rent and revealing unavoidable add-ons later.
If a fee is mandatory, does it have to be in the advertised rent today?
There is no single nationwide rule requiring that across all long-term rentals as of April 2026. However, the FTC’s enforcement actions indicate the agency may treat
