�鶹��ý

The �鶹��ý Trade Commission and the State of Colorado are taking action against Greystar, the nation’s largest multi-family rental property manager, for deceiving consumers about monthly rent costs by tacking on numerous mandatory fees on top of advertised prices.

According to the complaint filed by the FTC and Colorado, these hidden fees have cost consumers living in Greystar properties hundreds of millions of dollars since at least 2019, and consumers often have not discovered the fees until after they have signed a lease or moved in.

“The FTC is suing Greystar for deceptively advertising low monthly rents only to later saddle tenants with hundreds of dollars of hidden junk fees,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC should continue its work taking on corporate landlords that use illegal tactics to jack up rent, exploit tenants, and deprive Americans of safe and affordable housing.”

“Because of Greystar’s deceptive advertising and hidden fees, tenants are on the hook in their lease for hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars more than they anticipated that their apartment would cost. Through their actions, Greystar is thwarting apartment hunters from comparison shopping and choosing a home that fits within their budget,” said Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser. “To the extent that other corporate landlords are not advertising their all-in pricing and are engaging in similar tactics, they are on notice that such conduct is illegal and will not be tolerated in Colorado.”

Greystar touts itself as the “largest operator of apartments in the United States,” managing more than 800,000 residential rental units throughout the country in addition to holding an ownership interest in more than 100,000 residential rental units. According to the complaint, the company’s portfolio includes apartment buildings and complexes, senior housing, and student housing. Greystar is hired by property owners to manage apartments on their behalf, including advertising available units and finding tenants for those units, and the company keeps a percentage of all the rent and fees it collects from tenants and applicants.

Greystar widely advertises rental properties in a number of venues, including third-party sites like Zillow, its own website, and sites for individual buildings and complexes. Consumers, however, cannot rent a Greystar unit for the advertised price, but instead must pay a higher price inflated by hidden fees, according to the complaint.

Greystar’s hidden fees allegedly range from tens to hundreds of dollars a month, which add up substantially over the course of a consumer’s lease. Among the fees noted in the complaint are “valet trash” fees, package handling fees, utility fees, fees to distribute utility bills, “verification fees” when consumers use non-Greystar-provided renters’ insurance, and media/smart home packages, among numerous others. The FTC and Colorado say that  consumers cannot opt out of these fees even if they do not want or use the related services.

In many instances, consumers who saw an advertisement for a Greystar apartment had no way to learn about these hidden fees until after they filled out inquiry forms with their personal information or clicked through small-print hyperlinks, according to the complaint. The complaint also explains that Greystar, in some cases, waited to reveal fees until after consumers had paid a substantial application fee or holding deposit, and then only deep in a 40- to 60-page lease agreement. The complaint further charges that if consumers discover the existence of the fees after their application is approved and choose not to sign the lease, Greystar does not refund the application fees or holding deposits they paid, which can be hundreds of dollars.

The complaint cites multiple examples of Greystar-managed properties where its advertisements on third-party real estate listing sites, like Zillow, failed to list the company’s mandatory fees, despite those sites having a specific “fees” section where the company does list optional fees like those for parking or pets. According to the complaint, even on websites Greystar operated, apartment listings did not include information about mandatory fees, even where optional fees were listed.

According to the complaint, despite knowing precisely what fees apply to an individual apartment, Greystar does not tell consumers, who instead have to wade through often contradictory information to identify which fees will apply to their unit and manually add them to the advertised rent price.

Even after moving into Greystar-managed apartments, consumers complained that they were still surprised by mandatory fees for services they either didn’t ask for or didn’t use, according to the complaint. One consumer said, “When signing my lease I was quoted just over $1,000… with all their additional things that are required for you to pay I pay about $1,400 NOT INCLUDING UTILITIES… when you need a place to stay you gotta do what you gotta do right?”

Another consumer cited in the complaint said, “Don’t [m]ove here. Hidden fees in lease. They get no stars from me. Ended up backing out and not signing. Lost $360 in deposits and application fees.”

The complaint charges that Greystar and a number of its subsidiaries violated the FTC Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.

The staff attorneys on this matter are Samantha Bennett, Roberta Tonelli, and Spencer Scoville of the FTC’s Western Region, San Francisco.