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.
Allegations and Settlement
While denying any wrongdoing, Progress and Pretium face allegations that advertised monthly rates failed to include mandatory extras like smart-home and utility fees. Some tenants were also charged for not submitting renters’ insurance documentation, with many unaware of these costs until after signing leases or receiving their first bills.
The FTC asserts these practices have cost renters tens of millions since 2021, while also questioning how Progress marketed property conditions. Some listings promoted as move-in ready allegedly required extensive cleaning or repairs upon arrival.
Property Conditions and Security Deposits
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 itemized statements explaining deductions, despite company promises that these would be provided within 30 days of moving out.
The FTC’s complaint also highlighted poor customer service, including unresolved maintenance requests, billing disputes, and refund issues. Additionally, some lease agreements allegedly included clauses restricting tenants from posting negative feedback about the company.
Statement from the FTC
Christopher Mufarrige, head of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, emphasized the need for clear rental pricing. ‘Accurate fee disclosure lets people compare options and avoid surprises.’
In a joint statement, Pretium and Progress acknowledged the settlement with the FTC and four states regarding operations from 2021 to 2025. They insisted their practices were ‘transparent and aligned with industry norms,’ though they did not admit liability.
New Requirements for Rental Advertising
The settlement requires Progress and Pretium to pay $48.5 million (A$70.3 million) to the FTC for affected tenants, plus an additional $1.25 million (A$1.8 million) to Arizona. The agreement also imposes new rules on advertising, deposit handling, and tenant communications.
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 standardized security deposit procedures, maintain appropriate records of property conditions, and provide itemized 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, standardized clauses restricting negative reviews, and certain unfair customer service practices would also be prohibited.
This case reflects growing regulatory pressure on rental fee transparency, following a similar 2024 FTC action against Invitation Homes, which paid $48 million over hidden charges. The settlement shows risks for property managers related to pricing clarity, deposit policies, and tenant communications.
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. 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, and the case remains pending, with the proposed order requiring judicial approval before becoming enforceable.
