The Federal Trade Commission and the states of Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, and Utah allege that Progress Residential, a large manager of single-family rental homes, and its owner, private equity firm Pretium Partners, misled renters and engaged in other unlawful practices. The proposed settlement is described as the FTC’s largest enforcement matter against a landlord. The complaint was filed with the proposed stipulated order in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

According to the complaint, since at least 2021 Progress advertised rental prices that excluded mandatory recurring fees and inadequately disclosed other charges. Examples included monthly smart-home and utility-management fees, as well as a fee for renters who did not provide proof of insurance. The agencies allege that renters often learned of these charges only after signing a lease or moving in, costing consumers tens of millions of dollars.

The complaint also alleges that Progress advertised homes as inspected and move-in ready even though some required significant maintenance, repairs, or cleaning. It further claims that the companies improperly withheld security deposits for normal wear and tear, pre-existing conditions, and renovations or repairs that were the companies’ responsibility. Some renters allegedly did not receive promised itemized statements of deductions within 30 days of moving out.

The agencies say Progress failed to provide adequate customer service, including by not responding promptly or at all. This allegedly left billing errors, improper charges, late fees, maintenance requests, and deposit disputes unresolved. The complaint also challenges form-contract nondisparagement provisions that allegedly barred consumers from making negative comments about the companies.

Under the proposed settlement, Progress and Pretium will pay $49.75 million: $48.5 million to the FTC for consumer redress and $1.25 million to Arizona. They must prominently advertise the true total monthly rental price, including all mandatory recurring fees, and may not misrepresent whether homes have been inspected or passed inspection before move-in.

The order would also require a security-deposit refund process with uniform withholding standards, staff training, and adequate records. Renters must receive an itemized explanation of deductions within 30 days of moving out or the period required by state law. The companies may not deduct for normal wear and tear, pre-existing conditions, or certain renovation and capital-improvement costs unrelated to renter-caused damage. They would also be barred from requiring standardized nondisparagement clauses and from specified unfair customer-service practices.

The complaint states that most of the alleged conduct occurred under prior management and that new management has taken steps to address the issues. The FTC voted 2-0 to authorize the complaint and proposed order. The order will have the force of law if approved and signed by the district court judge.