Since 2006, I have emphasized that the rental housing industry was heading toward a reckoning over “hidden fees”, confusing pricing structures, and inconsistent disclosures. In 2025, that reckoning arrived, and it arrived in the form of a landmark lawsuit and 24-million-dollar settlement involving Greystar, the largest property management company in the United States.
The Greystar case is more than a headline; it is a blueprint of what regulators believe is deceptive, what practices will no longer be tolerated, and what courts and attorneys general are prepared to enforce. Landlords across Florida should take note now.
This article addresses lessons from the Greystar lawsuit and perhaps some unintended consequences resulting from the lawsuit.
What Greystar Did Wrong: Hidden Fees, Bait-and-Switch Pricing, and Deceptive Ads
The heart of the lawsuit was simple: Greystar advertised rental prices that did not reflect the true cost of renting a unit. The company displayed attractive base rents on apartment listings, websites, and marketing channels, while “hiding” mandatory monthly fees in hyperlinks, lease addenda, and sections of the application portal that appeared only after prospective tenants submitted personal and financial information.
These charges included technology packages, valet trash, pest control, amenity fees, package management fees, and other recurring, unavoidable costs that could easily increase the monthly price by $100–$250. According to the Complaint, tenants often learned the “real price” only after they had paid a nonrefundable application fee or holding deposit.
Screenshots included in the complaint purported to show how these hidden fees appeared: concealed behind drop-down menus, embedded in long lease addenda, or revealed only after the tenant had already invested time and money into the process.
The $24M Settlement: New Rules for Rental Advertising and Fee Disclosures
To resolve the case, Greystar agreed to a sweeping settlement with multiple states, without admitting wrongdoing. The settlement imposed a list of restrictions and reporting obligations, including transparency in pricing, limitations on the use of revenue management tools, prohibitions on sharing competitor pricing data, and mandatory compliance monitoring.
But for landlords, the most important takeaway is this: state regulators now expect the rent price to reflect the true, total cost of renting the home. They will consider anything less to be deceptive, including:
- any fee a tenant cannot opt out of
- any recurring charge tied to occupancy
- any bundled or “required” service fee
- any cost disguised as a “deposit” but not refundable
This settlement signals a significant shift. Regulators are no longer targeting only egregious misconduct: they are now scrutinizing standard industry practices.
5 Critical Steps for FL Landlords to Avoid Junk Fee Lawsuits
The Greystar lawsuit makes one thing unmistakably clear: landlords and property managers must be proactive—not reactive—about compliance and transparency. Florida landlords, in particular, face heightened exposure under Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) and F.S. ch. 83, pt. 2. Below are five key steps landlords should begin implementing immediately to explain why it matters, how regulators view the issue, and what real-world practices reduce liability.
1. Advertise the Real Price — Not the Teaser Price
Historically, many landlords have advertised a base rent that looks competitive, then added mandatory fees after the tenant has already shown interest, clicked through an online portal, or paid an application fee. That era may be coming to a complete close.
Why this matters legally
The Greystar lawsuit centered on the premise that rent advertisements must reflect the true cost of renting the home. Florida’s unfair and deceptive trade practices law may be used to enforce this expectation as tenant advocates may consider any representation that is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer to be deceptive, even if the misrepresentation wasn’t intentional.
A rent ad that says “$1,500/month” but really requires $1,625 after mandatory fees will be argued to be deceptive because:
- The tenant cannot rent the unit at the advertised price.
- The extra charges are unavoidable, not optional.
- The advertisement conveys a false sense of value.
To help reduce this risk of liability, landlords should update their practices, such as:
- Include all mandatory monthly fees in the advertised rent or prominently list each mandatory fee directly next to the rental rate.
- Avoid vague phrases such as “additional fees may apply.”
- If a service is required (e.g., tech package, valet trash), it must be advertised in the same location as the rent.
Practical example
Instead of:
“Rent: $1,500/month. Additional fees may apply.”
Use:
“Rent: $1,625/month (includes $125 mandatory resident service package)”.
This reduces risk, improves trust, and aligns with the direction regulators are heading.
2. Disclose All Fees Before Collecting an Application Fee
One of the biggest problems in the Greystar case was timing. Many fees were revealed only after the tenant had paid a nonrefundable application fee or holding deposit. This created the type of “bait-and-switch” argument that regulators deemed unlawful.
Why this matters legally
Under Florida’s FDUTPA, an unfair practice is one that offends established public policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers. The law does not require a tenant to prove intent but rather only that the conduct is likely to mislead the consumer who acted reasonably under the circumstances to the consumer’s detriment.
Disclosing mandatory fees after collecting money is the type of practice that Greystar’s opponents considered “unfair” or “deceptive” because:
- The consumer has already committed financially.
- The consumer may feel pressured to proceed even after learning of the hidden fees.
- The landlord benefits from strategic timing, while the tenant bears the risk.
Landlords can mitigate these risks by updating their practices accordingly, such as:
- Create a pre-application disclosure page listing all recurring monthly fees, all one-time fees, and all nonrefundable charges.
- Require prospective tenants to confirm receipt of this disclosure before paying anything.
- In online portals, the disclosure must appear before entering payment information.
- Do not hide fees behind hyperlinks, expandable menus, or secondary screens.
Some practical examples include the following:
If your application fee is $75 and the holding deposit is $300, tenants must see a clear breakdown of:
- Rent
- Resident benefit package fee
- Utilities admin fees
- Amenity fees
- Any other mandatory charges
before paying the $75 or $300.
3. Make the Lease Transparent — No Buried Fees, No Surprises
Even if the advertisement and application disclosures are correct, landlords still face risk if the lease packet contains hidden fees buried in addenda or scattered across multiple documents. Greystar’s case illustrates this point of contention, as some fees allegedly appeared 12–20 pages into unrelated addenda.
Why this matters legally
Florida courts may construe ambiguous or hidden terms against the landlord, not the tenant. Moreover, FDUTPA applies to lease terms just as much as advertisements.
A landlord who buries mandatory fees could risk a court finding:
- The fee being unenforceable
- Liability for deceptive conduct
- Class-action exposure if many tenants were affected
Landlords can mitigate these risks by updating their practices, such as:
- Create a Lease Charges Summary Table on page 1 of the lease.
- List all mandatory fees, with exact dollar amounts—not ranges or approximate figures.
- Ensure no fee appears in the lease that is not also in the summary table.
- Eliminate vague or discretionary fee language unless legally justified.
4. Comply Strictly With Security Deposit Law (F.S. 83.49)
Security deposit disputes are one of the most litigated areas of Florida landlord-tenant law. Even a small misstep with deposit handling can lead to statutory damages, return of the entire deposit, and attorney’s fees.
Why this matters legally
Florida Statute 83.49 is unforgiving:
- If the landlord fails to send a notice of claim within 30 days, they forfeit the right to make any deduction.
- If the notice is defective, late, ambiguous, or sent incorrectly, tenants may recover attorney’s fees.
- “Nonrefundable deposits” are not recognized by Florida law—only fees may be nonrefundable.
Landlords should update their practices to include:
- Never label a security deposit as a “nonrefundable deposit” or as “forfeited” upon a tenant violation.
- Keep deposit funds in compliant escrow accounts.
- Calendar every tenant move-out to ensure the 30-day deadline is met.
- Use standardized claim notice templates drafted by counsel.
- Avoid deductions for “routine cleaning” or “normal wear and tear.”
5. Train Leasing Staff Consistently — Your Greatest Liability Exposure
Even with perfect documents, your exposure depends on what your staff says, does, and writes. Many FDUTPA cases arise not from the paperwork, but from inconsistent verbal disclosures or emails from leasing agents.
Why this matters legally
Statements by leasing staff:
- Can be considered part of the contract
- Can create enforceable promises
- Can invalidate fee provisions
- Can be used as evidence of deceptive practices
Regulators take these representations seriously. Inconsistent or inaccurate statements show a pattern of misleading conduct, which is exactly what Greystar was accused of.
Landlords should update their practices to include:
- Provide script-based leasing communications to ensure consistent messaging.
- Train staff to present prices as “all-in,” not “starting at.”
- Require all fee-related explanations to match written materials exactly.
- Audit recorded calls, emails, and chat transcripts.
- Implement quarterly compliance refreshers.
Practical example
If the staff member says “your rent is $1,500” but the summary table lists $1,625 with mandatory add-ons, that inconsistency creates liability even if the documents are correct.
3 Unintended Consequences That Could Reshape Multifamily Housing
While the Greystar lawsuit focuses on deceptive pricing and unfair consumer practices, the ripple effects will reach far beyond advertising and application processes. The requirement to clearly disclose, and in many cases, include mandatory fees in the advertised rent will profoundly influence the economics, operations, and asset valuation of rental housing.
These consequences are subtle, but they are inevitable, and property managers should prepare for them now rather than after they begin experiencing friction with clients, investors, or the market itself.
1. Property Management Agreements Will Be Affected
Property management companies have long relied on a blended revenue model: a percentage of rent collected, plus separate administrative or service fees charged to tenants. Historically, many of these fees (e.g. pet screening fees, tech packages, pest control, amenity fees, valet trash, etc.) were labeled “additional rent” in the lease but were not included in the publicly advertised rent amount. This separation allowed property managers to:
- Keep advertised rents competitive
- Prevent owners from demanding commission on fee-based income
- Maintain flexibility in creating value-added services
However, the Greystar settlement and the broader regulatory tightening around “junk fees” make it difficult, and potentially risky, for property managers to continue separating these charges from the advertised rental price. When transparency requires listing all mandatory fees in the advertised price, the public-facing rent increases. This triggers a predictable and potentially contentious reaction from property owners:
“If you’re advertising this higher rent, then I want to be paid my full percentage of that amount.”
This creates several issues:
- Owners will renegotiate commission structures, arguing that all revenue labeled as “rent” or required for occupancy should count toward commission calculations.
- Property managers may lose fee revenue they previously captured directly.
- Service fees that were designed as a separate revenue stream may now be absorbed into rent and treated as such under the management agreement.
- Conflicts may arise when the owner believes the manager has artificially inflated the rent figure by adding tenant-benefit-service fees.
If these agreements are not updated proactively, disputes are almost guaranteed. Therefore, management companies must revise their contracts to clearly define:
- What counts as “rent collected”
- Whether additional-fee categories are included or excluded from commission
- Who owns the revenue from tenant benefit services
- How all-in pricing affects rent-setting authority and revenue distribution
Property managers who fail to address these distinctions will find themselves renegotiating under pressure or defending against demands for refunds or back commissions.
2. Advertised Rents Will Increase—Which May Push Market Rents Higher
Requiring transparency sounds consumer-friendly, but it may produce a counterintuitive economic effect: advertised rents across the market will rise, even if tenants are not paying more than before. This happens for three reasons:
A. Mandatory fees must now be included upfront.
If a unit previously advertised at $1,500 really costs $1,625 after mandatory fees, the new transparent advertised rent becomes $1,625 per month. This looks like a rent increase, even though the economic reality has not changed.
B. Other landlords will compare themselves to all-in pricing.
A landlord without tenant-benefit services may see similar properties listed for a higher all-inclusive rent and think, “Why is my property priced $100 lower? I must be undervaluing it.” This perception encourages landlords to raise rent to match the competition, even if their actual offering has not changed.
C. Rent-shopping algorithms, investors, and market analysts rely on listed rents, not lease fine print.
MLS systems, ILS platforms (Zillow, Apartments.com), and market comp tools will now reflect higher all-in rents. When analysts see every property in a submarket listed at higher rents, the market rent ceiling shifts upward, even though the increase is driven by disclosure requirements not true market demand. The unintended outcome is this: transparent pricing may inadvertently push rents higher across entire markets. Ironically, a policy intended to protect tenants from hidden fees may create an environment where landlords feel justified in raising base rents to match all-inclusive competitor pricing.
3. Asset Valuations May Become Inflated
In the multifamily industry, property value is largely determined by Net Operating Income (NOI), which is driven primarily by rental income. When rents rise, whether due to market demand or, in this case, mandatory fee disclosure, NOI rises as well. Higher NOI generally leads to:
- Higher appraised values
- Higher asking prices during sale
- Higher refinance ability
- Lower cap rates in perception
This creates a valuation paradox.
A. Higher advertised rents appear to reflect stronger income potential
When investors evaluate a property, they may not necessarily analyze the underlying structure of the fees. They look at:
- Advertised rent
- Rent rolls
- Market comparables
If those figures now reflect higher “all-in” pricing, the property appears more valuable, even if the increase is not driven by demand, but by regulatory compliance.
B. Tenant-benefit services distort the income picture
If a property advertises a rent of $1,700 but $125 of that is really for required services, an appraiser may treat the entire amount as “rent,” which increases the projected income stream. The property looks like it commands higher market rent than it truly does.
C. The valuation bubble risk
If rents are overstated, capitalization calculations may inflate valuations artificially. Buyers may overpay for assets that appear stronger on paper than they really are. Lenders may issue loans based on income that is not truly scalable or sustainable. Sellers may believe their assets have appreciated significantly, when the numbers are really a reflection of bundled-fee practices. This could create systemic distortions in the multifamily market similar to how short-term cap-rate compression once did.
Bottom Line: Transparency Is No Longer Optional—It’s the Law
The Greystar lawsuit is more than a cautionary tale; it signals a fundamental shift in how regulators, courts, and consumers expect rental housing to operate. Florida landlords who embrace transparency, clarity, and consistency will reduce their legal exposure and strengthen their credibility and competitiveness in an increasingly scrutinized market. By advertising the “all in” rent of tenancy, disclosing all fees upfront, structuring leases with clarity, complying strictly with security deposit laws, and ensuring staff communicate accurately, landlords position themselves ahead of the curve. The rental housing industry is evolving, and those who adapt proactively, rather than under pressure, will be the ones who succeed. In a world where trust and transparency are quickly becoming the new currency, the landlords who lead with honesty will stand strongest.