Progress Residential and Pretium Partners to Pay $49.75 Million to Settle FTC and State Claims Over Hidden Rental Fees
WASHINGTON — Nov. 7, 2026 — Progress Residential, which the Federal Trade Commission describes as the nation’s largest property manager of single-family rental homes, and its private equity owner, Pretium Partners, have agreed to pay $49.75 million to resolve claims by the FTC and four states that the companies advertised rents that left out mandatory monthly fees, withheld security deposits for normal wear and tear and used contract terms that restricted tenant reviews, the FTC announced Nov. 6. The FTC called it the largest enforcement matter it has ever brought against a landlord.
The case matters for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who rent single-family homes from large corporate landlords. Progress manages more than 90,000 homes across 17 states, according to the complaint. The proposed order, which still needs a federal judge’s approval, would require the company to advertise a “true total monthly rental price” that includes mandatory recurring fees. Progress and Pretium neither admit nor deny the allegations, and a Progress spokesperson said the agreement “contains no admission of wrongdoing,” HousingWire reported.
What Happened
On Nov. 6, 2026, the FTC, the Arizona and Colorado attorneys general, the State of Indiana and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection filed a complaint and a proposed stipulated order against Progress Residential, LLC and Pretium Partners, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the filing, according to the FTC’s press release.
The complaint alleges that since at least 2021, Progress advertised a monthly rent that did not include mandatory recurring fees and that consumers often learned about those fees only after signing a lease or receiving their first bill. The FTC says the hidden fees “have cost consumers tens of millions of dollars.” These are allegations. The FTC files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” the law has been violated, and the companies have not been found liable.
“Consumers searching for housing should have access to straightforward information about the costs,” said Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in the release. Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita said “no company, regardless of size or financial backing, gets a free pass to mislead consumers,” according to HousingWire.
The company’s response
Under the proposed order, Progress and Pretium neither admit nor deny the complaint’s allegations, except for facts needed to establish the court’s jurisdiction. A Progress spokesperson told HousingWire the company disagrees with the FTC’s claims and that its practices were fair and consistent with industry norms. The FTC’s release notes that most of the alleged conduct occurred under prior management and that new management has moved to address the issues.
What the Complaint Alleges
The complaint groups its allegations into five areas. The table below lists some of the recurring monthly fees the complaint says were not included in advertised rent. Amounts vary by home and market.
| Fee | Amount alleged in the complaint |
|---|---|
| Smart home fee | $17 to $30 per month |
| Utility management fee | $7.95 to $9.99 per month |
| Air filter fee | $9.99 per month |
| Renter’s insurance exemption fee | $14.95 per month, allegedly charged even to some residents who had proof of coverage |
| Resident benefit package fee | $15 per month |
| Pest control fee | $10 per month |
| Landscaping fee | $35 to $120 per month (where applicable) |
| Pool fee | $100 to $175 per month (where applicable) |
Beyond pricing, the complaint alleges that Progress:
- Advertised homes as “move-in ready” and inspected when many allegedly needed serious maintenance, repair or cleaning.
- Withheld security deposits for normal wear and tear, preexisting conditions and repairs the company was responsible for, and often failed to send itemized move-out statements within 30 days.
- Failed to respond to tenants in a timely way, or at all, leading to billing errors, unfinished repairs and unresolved deposit disputes.
- Used form contracts with nondisparagement clauses, including in account adjustment and early termination agreements, that barred tenants from posting negative comments.
The complaint also describes one-time charges such as application fees of up to $55 per adult applicant, a holding fee that rose from $250 to $500 in July 2024, a $125 lease administration fee, and late fees typically of $125 to $150. It cites a 2023 internal company report showing $68.8 million in fees and penalties in 2022.
The Law Behind the Case
The complaint relies on several federal and state laws:
- FTC Act Section 5, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. Advertising a price that omits mandatory charges is the core deception theory.
- Consumer Review Fairness Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45b, which makes form-contract provisions void if they restrict or penalize consumers’ honest reviews.
- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Section 521, 15 U.S.C. § 6821, which bars false statements used to obtain customers’ financial information. The complaint alleges false statements were made to obtain applicants’ bank and card information.
- State consumer protection laws: the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (A.R.S. §§ 44-1521 to 44-1534), the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (C.R.S. § 6-1-101 et seq.), Indiana’s Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5) and Home Loan Practices Act (Ind. Code § 37-5), and the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (Utah Code §§ 13-11-4 and 13-11-5).
The case also fits a broader federal focus on rental fees. In March 2026, the FTC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking asking whether it should write a rule on unfair or deceptive fees in rental housing, from application through move-out. That notice is an early step. It is not a final rule and does not by itself impose new requirements on landlords.
What the Proposed Order Requires
The proposed stipulated order would require the companies to:
- Advertise the true total price. Progress must show the “Total Monthly Rental Price,” defined as the entire recurring monthly amount including all recurring mandatory fees, more prominently than other pricing information. Variable utilities and optional fees are excluded.
- Stop misrepresenting home condition. The companies may not claim a home was inspected or passed inspection before move-in if that is not true.
- Follow deposit rules. Deductions are allowed only for tenant-caused damage beyond normal wear and tear, in a reasonable amount, and only if the damage is actually repaired. Charges for preexisting conditions, routine maintenance and upgrades are generally barred.
- Send itemized statements on time. An itemized statement is due within 30 days after move-out, or sooner if state law requires.
- Drop review-limiting terms. The companies may not offer, enforce or assert contract terms that restrict or penalize consumer reviews.
- Train staff and keep records. Annual training and at least three years of home-condition records, with copies available to residents on request, plus compliance reporting to the FTC.
How the money would be paid
| Item | Terms |
|---|---|
| Monetary judgment | $48.5 million, joint and several, in favor of the plaintiffs |
| First payment | $4.5 million within 10 days after the court enters the order |
| Installments | Eleven payments of $4 million at 30-day intervals |
| Arizona | $1.25 million for attorneys’ fees and costs within 30 days of entry |
| If a payment is missed | The full unpaid balance becomes due immediately, with interest |
| Use of funds | Consumer redress and administration; any remainder may go to related relief or the U.S. Treasury |
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Since at least 2021 | Period in which the complaint alleges hidden fees were charged |
| July 2024 | Progress’s holding fee rises from $250 to $500, according to the complaint |
| Sept. 24, 2024 | Invitation Homes agrees to a $48 million FTC settlement over similar hidden-fee and deposit allegations |
| Nov. 2024 | FTC investigation of Progress begins, according to the complaint |
| March 2026 | FTC publishes advance notice of proposed rulemaking on rental housing fees |
| Nov. 6, 2026 | FTC and four states file complaint and proposed stipulated order in N.D. Ga. |
| To be determined | Court decides whether to enter the order; FTC later announces any refund process |
Who Is Affected
- Current and former Progress tenants. People who rented from Progress since 2021 may be eligible for redress if the FTC sets up a refund program. The FTC has not announced eligibility rules or a timeline.
- Renters in Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and Utah. These states joined the case, but the FTC’s claims and the pricing and deposit requirements are not limited to those states.
- Future applicants. If the order is entered, listings for Progress homes would have to show a total monthly price that includes mandatory recurring fees.
- Other large landlords. The FTC said it “is monitoring the rental housing market and will continue to take action where appropriate.”
What Happens Next
The court must decide whether to approve and enter the proposed stipulated order. Under the order, the companies waive their right to appeal once it is entered. Payments then begin on the schedule above, and the FTC decides how to distribute redress. In past cases, the FTC has announced refund details on its refunds page once a distribution plan is ready, and it often sends payments directly to eligible consumers using company records. The FTC has not said whether that will happen here.
What Readers Should Know
This section is general information, not legal advice. Renters with questions about their own lease or deposit should speak with a licensed attorney or a local tenant resource.
- You do not need to pay to get an FTC refund. Be cautious of anyone who asks for a fee or account information to “claim” Progress settlement money. Official refund information will come from the FTC. Our guide on how to verify a settlement notice explains how to check whether a notice is real.
- Keep your records. Leases, listing screenshots, monthly statements, move-in and move-out photos, and deposit statements may help if a refund program asks for documentation.
- Compare the total monthly cost. Before signing any lease, ask for a written list of every mandatory recurring fee and add it to the advertised rent.
- Know your state’s deposit rules. Most states set deadlines and limits on security deposit deductions. See our security deposit guide and our coverage of what happens when a landlord misses the deposit deadline.
- Honest reviews are protected. The Consumer Review Fairness Act generally voids form-contract terms that penalize truthful reviews.
Legal News Report will update this article when the court rules on the proposed order or the FTC announces a refund process. Readers with information about rental fee practices can contact our newsroom through the Submit a Tip page. More coverage is in our Housing and Settlements sections.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much is the Progress Residential FTC settlement?
The settlement totals $49.75 million. The proposed order includes a $48.5 million monetary judgment that the FTC can use for consumer redress and a separate $1.25 million payment to Arizona for attorneys’ fees and costs.
What did the FTC accuse Progress Residential of doing?
The FTC and four states allege that Progress advertised monthly rents that left out mandatory recurring fees, advertised homes as move-in ready when many were not, withheld security deposits for normal wear and tear, failed to respond to tenants and used contract terms that restricted negative reviews. These are allegations, and Progress and Pretium neither admit nor deny them.
Will Progress Residential tenants get refunds?
The FTC says the $48.5 million will be used to provide redress to harmed consumers, but it has not yet announced who is eligible, how much people may receive or when payments will be made. Official information will be posted by the FTC.
Do I need to file a claim for the Progress Residential settlement?
No claim process has been announced. The FTC often sends refunds directly to eligible consumers, but it has not said how this case will work. The FTC does not require people to pay a fee to receive a refund.
Is the Progress Residential settlement final?
No. The proposed stipulated order was filed on Nov. 6, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and takes effect only after the court approves and enters it.
Which states are part of the Progress Residential case?
Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and Utah joined the FTC as plaintiffs. Progress manages more than 90,000 homes across 17 states, and the pricing and deposit requirements in the proposed order are not limited to the four plaintiff states.
Sources
- FTC: Progress Residential and Owner Pretium Partners to Pay $49.75 Million to Settle FTC and States’ Charges Over Deceptive Rental Pricing Practices and Other Unlawful Conduct (Nov. 6, 2026)
- Complaint, FTC et al. v. Progress Residential, LLC and Pretium Partners, LLC (N.D. Ga.) (PDF)
- Proposed Stipulated Order, FTC et al. v. Progress Residential, LLC and Pretium Partners, LLC (PDF)
- FTC Case Page: Progress Residential, LLC (Matter No. 2423073)
- FTC Seeks Public Comment on a Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Unfair or Deceptive Rental Housing Fee Practices (March 2026)
- FTC: Recent FTC Cases Resulting in Refunds
- 15 U.S.C. § 45 — Unfair Methods of Competition Unlawful (FTC Act Section 5), Cornell Legal Information Institute
- 15 U.S.C. § 45b — Consumer Review Fairness Act, Cornell Legal Information Institute
- 15 U.S.C. § 6821 — Privacy Protection for Customer Information of Financial Institutions (GLBA), Cornell Legal Information Institute
- Progress Residential to Pay $49.8M to Settle FTC, State Claims Over Rental Practices (HousingWire, Nov. 6, 2026)
- Invitation Homes Agrees to Pay $48 Million to Settle Claims It Saddled Tenants With Hidden Fees (AP via News4JAX, Sept. 24, 2024)
This article is for general informational and news purposes only and is not legal advice. Legal News Report is a news publication, not a law firm or a lawyer referral service, and reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. The allegations described are claims that have not been proven in court. See our Legal Disclaimer, Editorial Standards and Corrections Policy.
