Proposed order requires companies to advertise true rental prices, clearly and conspicuously disclose fees and stop improperly withholding security deposits

WASHINGTON, D.C. / CRWE PRESS RELEASE / November 6, 2026 -  The nation’s largest property manager of single-family rental homes, Progress Residential, and its owner, private equity firm Pretium Partners, will pay $49.75 million to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission and four states that the companies misled consumers with deceptive rental pricing practices. This is the largest enforcement matter taken against a landlord in the Commission’s history.

The FTC and Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and Utah allege Progress and Pretium advertised false rental prices, charged hidden fees, failed to inspect homes before residents moved in, improperly deducted amounts from renters’ security deposits, restricted negative reviews, and failed to provide adequate customer service. The complaint alleges that, since at least 2021, these hidden fees, which often go undiscovered until after consumers have signed a lease or moved in, have cost consumers tens of millions of dollars. 

“Consumers searching for housing should have access to straightforward information about the costs associated with renting a home,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Transparency regarding rental prices and fees helps consumers compare options and make informed choices. Clear pricing practices also support competition by allowing housing providers to compete on the basis of price, quality and service. The FTC is monitoring the rental housing market and will continue to take action where appropriate to ensure that consumers receive clear and accurate information about the costs of renting a home.” 

Progress, which was founded by and is wholly owned by the private equity investment firm Pretium, touts itself as the nation’s largest property manager of single-family rental homes. Progress manages over 90,000 homes across 17 states, which Pretium owns through its investment funds.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Progress and Pretium made deceptive claims about:

• Pricing and fees. Progress advertised a false monthly rental price that failed to disclose mandatory monthly fees. Progress misrepresented, failed to adequately disclose and unfairly charged a myriad of one-time and situational fees—such as monthly “smart home” or “utility management” fees that are not included in the advertised monthly rental price and an inadequately disclosed “renter’s insurance exemption fee” for not providing proof of renters’ insurance, which many consumers only find out about in their first monthly bill.
• Move-in conditions. Progress advertised that its homes were “move-in ready” and inspected before consumers moved in. In reality, numerous consumers found that Progress’s homes were not move-in ready and needed serious maintenance, repair or cleaning issues. 
• Security deposits. Progress falsely promised consumers that it would only deduct amounts from their security deposits for damages consumers caused beyond normal wear and tear. Instead, Progress routinely withheld some or all of consumers’ security deposits for normal wear and tear, for preexisting conditions and for renovations and repairs that were the companies’ responsibility. Progress also promised to send consumers itemized statements of their security deposit charges within 30 days of move-out, but many consumers never received such a statement. 

The complaint further alleges that Progress failed to follow through on its customer service promises. For instance, the company allegedly failed to respond to consumers in a timely manner, if at all, or gave renters the runaround, causing issues to go unresolved. According to the complaint, Progress’s lack of response led to billing errors and improper charges that went unanswered as consumers incurred late fees, maintenance and repair requests that went unfulfilled, and security deposit disputes that remained unresolved. 

Finally, the FTC and the four states allege that Progress and Pretium used multiple form contracts with consumers that contained nondisparagement provisions, which unlawfully prohibit consumers from making any negative comments about the company. 

The complaint alleges that the majority of the conduct occurred under prior management, and that new management has moved to remedy the issues. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Progress and Pretium will pay $49.75 million – $48.5 million to the FTC, which will be used to provide redress to consumers harmed by the companies’ unlawful actions, and an additional $1.25 million paid to the State of Arizona. 

 Progress and Pretium will also be: 

• Prohibited from deceiving consumers about the true total rental price of a home, and Progress will be required to advertise the “true total monthly rental price”—inclusive of all mandatory recurring fees—more prominently than any other pricing information
• Prohibited from misrepresenting that rental homes are inspected or pass an inspection before consumers move in
• Required to establish a security deposit refund process, including establishing uniform security deposit withholding standards, implementing appropriate training and maintaining adequate documentation and records of the conditions of homes
• Required to provide consumers with an itemized statement explaining the basis of all amounts deducted from consumers’ security deposit or charged to their account no later than 30 days after a consumer moves out or within the time required by state law
• Prohibited from deducting from security deposits for damages that are part of normal wear and tear conditions, that predate a consumer’s possession of a property or for certain costs associated with renovations or capital improvements to a property not related to damage caused by a renter
• Prohibited from requiring consumers to agree to standardized nondisparagement clauses and from engaging in certain unfair customer service practices

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and proposed stipulated order was 2-0. The FTC and states filed the complaint and proposed stipulated order in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

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. Stipulated final injunctions/orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers. The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.

Contact Information

Media Contact

Nicole Drayton
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2565

Source: Federal Trade Commission