US property management giant Progress Residential and its private equity owner, Pretium Partners, have agreed to pay US$49.75 million (approximately A$72.1 million) to resolve allegations that renters were misled about the true cost of leasing properties and faced unfair charges.
The agreement, announced by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), represents the largest enforcement matter the regulator has brought against a landlord in its history.
Progress manages more than 90,000 single-family rental homes across 17 US states, making it the country’s largest property manager in that sector.
The action was brought by the FTC alongside authorities in Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and Utah, with regulators alleging that Progress and Pretium advertised misleading rental prices, imposed undisclosed charges and improperly withheld security deposits.
The companies dispute the allegations and have not admitted wrongdoing.
According to the FTC, renters were advertised monthly prices that excluded mandatory charges, including fees for smart-home technology and utility management.
Some tenants were also charged a fee for failing to provide proof of renters’ insurance, with regulators alleging that many only discovered the additional costs after signing their lease or receiving their first monthly bill.
The FTC claims the practices have cost renters tens of millions of dollars since at least 2021.
Property conditions and security deposits under scrutiny
The investigation also examined how Progress advertised the condition of its rental properties, with regulators alleging that some homes promoted as inspected and ready for occupation required significant cleaning, maintenance or repairs.
The FTC further alleged that the company routinely withheld some or all of tenants’ security deposits for ordinary wear and tear, pre-existing damage and repairs that were the landlord’s responsibility.
In some cases, renters allegedly did not receive itemised statements explaining deductions, despite company promises that these would be provided within 30 days of moving out.
The complaint also raised concerns about customer service, with regulators alleging that maintenance requests, billing disputes and refund complaints were sometimes left unresolved.
The FTC and participating states further alleged that some rental agreements contained clauses preventing tenants from making negative comments about the company.
Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said transparent rental pricing was essential for consumers.
“Consumers searching for housing should have access to straightforward information about the costs associated with renting a home,” he said.
“Transparency regarding rental prices and fees helps consumers compare options and make informed choices.”
Company disputes allegations
In a statement, Pretium and Progress confirmed they had reached an agreement with the FTC and four states concerning aspects of their rental operations between 2021 and 2025.
“The agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing, and we maintain that Progress’ practices have been transparent, fair, and consistent with industry practice,” the companies said.
“Although we disagree with the FTC’s claims, this resolution allows us to move forward with our continued improvements to the experience of our residents and the deployment of capital to expand the availability of quality, affordable rental housing for working families.”
The companies also welcomed efforts to establish consistent industry standards for rental fee disclosures and transparency.
The FTC’s complaint states that most of the alleged conduct occurred under previous management and acknowledges that new management has taken steps to address the issues.
New requirements for rental advertising
Under the proposed settlement, Progress and Pretium will pay US$48.5 million (approximately A$70.3 million) to the FTC for consumer redress, with a further US$1.25 million (A$1.8 million) going to Arizona.
The proposed order would also introduce requirements governing how Progress advertises rental properties, handles security deposits and responds to tenants.
The company would be required to display the total monthly rental price, including all mandatory recurring fees, more prominently than other pricing information.
It would also need to establish standardised security deposit procedures, maintain appropriate records of property conditions and provide itemised explanations of deductions.
The proposed order would prohibit deductions for normal wear and tear, pre-existing damage and certain renovation costs unrelated to damage caused by tenants.
Misleading claims about property inspections, standardised clauses restricting negative reviews and certain unfair customer service practices would also be prohibited.
The FTC’s court records confirm the complaint and proposed order were filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on 6 November.
The case remains pending, and the proposed order requires judicial approval before becoming enforceable.
Wider implications for property managers
The settlement comes as US regulators increase their scrutiny of rental pricing and the disclosure of mandatory fees.
As Reuters reported, the FTC is also considering requirements for landlords to include mandatory charges upfront in advertised rental prices.
The case follows a separate enforcement action against Invitation Homes, which agreed to pay US$48 million (approximately A$69.6 million) in 2024 to resolve FTC allegations involving hidden fees and other rental practices.
For Australian property managers, the proceedings provide an international example of the regulatory risks associated with rental advertising, fee transparency, property condition reporting and security deposit management.
Although the settlement has no direct legal effect on Australian agencies, it highlights the financial and reputational consequences that can arise when large property management businesses face allegations about their treatment of renters.