- FTC accuses Greystar of hiding fees that inflated rent by hundreds of dollars monthly.
- 40% of renters report discovering unexpected charges after signing a lease.
- “Junk fees” often include non-optional charges like tech, trash, or convenience fees.
- Deceptive advertising hampers renters’ ability to compare housing prices honestly.
- Lawsuits could pave the way for nationwide reforms mandating transparent rental pricing.
If you’ve been apartment hunting lately, you might have noticed something strange: the rental price advertised online doesn’t quite match the final amount due when it’s time to sign the lease. That’s no accident. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and several states, including Nevada, are now investigating property management companies for allegedly misleading renters with hidden rental fees. At the center of this legal storm is Greystar, the largest apartment management company in the U.S., recently sued for what the FTC calls deceptive advertising. Let’s break down what renters—especially in places like Las Vegas—should know about this case and how to protect themselves.
Greystar Lawsuit: What’s Happening?
The Federal Trade Commission, in collaboration with several state attorneys general, has launched legal action against Greystar Real Estate Partners, accusing the company of engaging in deceptive advertising and failing to disclose hidden rental fees during the tenant application process. These undisclosed charges—ranging from administrative, technological, and trash collection fees—often appeared only after renters had invested time and money into applying for the unit.
According to the FTC complaint, these fees were never presented as optional. In fact, many of them were mandatory add-ons to the base rent, yet not disclosed upfront when the apartments were listed online. This skewed pricing misled renters, creating the illusion that apartments were more affordable than they really were. In some cases, the cost of renting rose by hundreds of dollars per month once these charges were added to the baseline rent.
Greystar, which manages hundreds of thousands of residential units across the United States, has yet to release a detailed public response denying or addressing the specific allegations. But the lawsuit marks a larger movement by the government to shine a light on opaque practices in the rental housing industry.
The Scope of the Problem
The issue extends far beyond just one property management company. The litigation against Greystar has exposed a widespread pattern throughout the apartment rental industry where essential fees are fragmented and hidden until it’s nearly too late for applicants to back out.
Across the United States, tenants in numerous states are speaking out about encountering rental fees that were not disclosed in advertisements or initial walkthrough discussions. States like Arizona, California, New York, and Nevada have all contributed to the lawsuit or are currently investigating similar practices in their regions. This growing scrutiny suggests that undisclosed fees are not isolated incidents but part of an emerging norm in the rental market.
The impact on consumers is significant. Many low-to-moderate income families budget their rent based on advertised pricing, only to be slapped with unexplained charges just before signing a contract. These last-minute fees—ranging anywhere from $50 to over $300 monthly—can disrupt household finances, especially in cities like Las Vegas where housing affordability is already stretched thin.
Hidden Rental Fees in Las Vegas
Las Vegas, long advertised as a haven for affordable living relative to its coastal counterparts, is feeling the brunt of these hidden fees. The Greystar lawsuit specifically names Nevada, suggesting that some of the most egregious practices may be occurring in the Silver State.
With a growing population driven by California transplants seeking lower costs of living, the demand for rental housing in Las Vegas has surged in recent years. Property managers, including Greystar, have rapidly ramped up their portfolios across the valley. But this growth has not come without cost—particularly to the consumer.
Local tenants report being billed for:
- Monthly pest control services, even in units that had no prior infestations.
- Technology packages that bundle things like Wi-Fi routers and online payment access—even when tenants already have their own setups.
- Amenity or “luxury” use charges, despite limited or closed access to facilities like pools or gyms.
- Mandatory concierge fees in buildings without any front desk assistance.
Such charges are usually buried in fine print or discovered only at the end of the lease signing process. These surreptitious add-ons compromise cost transparency, particularly for first-time renters and those without legal or real estate expertise.
What Counts as a “Junk Fee”?
Not all fees associated with leasing are inherently deceptive. For example, prorated utilities, security deposits, or pet fees that are clearly communicated and itemized are generally justifiable. However, “junk fees” occupy a nebulous space where the necessity and value of the service are not made clear to the tenant—and more importantly, never explicitly mentioned in the rental listing or during initial discussions.
Examples of commonly cited junk fees include:
- “Technology packages” for mandatory internet or billing services the renter may not want or need.
- Admin or application fees duplicated across multiple units in the same complex.
- Pest control or cleaning fees charged monthly, even if services are not consistently provided.
- Convenience or portal fees applied to payments made online—the only method allowed by the management office.
- Community access fees charged separately from rent, even when all residents inherently share access to such spaces.
These fees give the impression of nickel-and-diming tenants, transforming seemingly affordable housing into unaffordable living situations once all the unexpected charges are layered on. Unfortunately, without regulatory oversight, these tactics have become more brazen, sparking not only legal but also ethical debates across the industry.
Why Deceptive Advertising Matters
From a legal standpoint, deceptive advertising violates Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or misleading trade practices. In the case of real estate rentals, this includes marketing a unit with a “base rent” that doesn’t reflect unavoidable fees, thus giving potential renters a false sense of affordability.
The government argues that such advertising prevents consumers from effectively comparing rental listings. If one apartment advertises a $1,200 monthly rent and another advertises $1,400—but the former fails to mention $250 in mandatory fees—then consumers are making financial decisions based on inaccurate comparisons.
Even worse, these tactics disproportionately harm vulnerable populations such as students, immigrants, and low-income households who may lack experience dealing with leases or negotiating fees. What might appear to be a minor additional cost to one person could be a serious burden on someone whose budget is already tight.
Cases like Greystar’s bring this into sharp relief, emphasizing how deeply renters depend on transparency to make informed and financially stable housing decisions.
A Call for Transparency in Renting
The FTC’s legal action is not occurring in a vacuum. Nationwide research, including studies by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, suggests that nearly 40% of tenants encounter surprise fees after signing a lease. These unanticipated charges can disrupt bill-paying schedules, force families to tap into emergency savings—or worse, push them toward eviction proceedings after fees make rent unaffordable.
Transparency in rental pricing is not just about ethics; it’s about practicality. If renters are given a clear, comprehensive view of their monthly and annual costs upfront, they are far more likely to maintain financial stability.
Legal experts and advocacy groups recommend that all legally required and recurring fees be included in the listed rent consumers see online. Not hidden in lease attachments. Not buried under vague labels. Listed as part of the “actual cost” from the start.
What Las Vegas Renters Should Be Asking
To avoid falling victim to hidden rental fees, renters in Las Vegas—and elsewhere—need to be proactive. According to real estate expert Steve Hawks, asking specific questions up front can save renters significant trouble later.
Here are four critical questions to ask any property manager:
- “What’s my total monthly charge, including all recurring fees?”
- “Are any listed fees mandatory? Are any optional?”
- “Can I see a written breakdown of rent, fees, and services before I pay a deposit?”
- “Are fees subject to increase during the lease? If so, how is that determined?”
Hawks cautions that if answers are evasive or pricing is not clearly displayed, that’s a red flag. Some leasing offices label services as “optional” in the fine print but penalize tenants who reject them, effectively making them non-negotiable.
Steve Hawks on the Broken Trust
Steve Hawks, a real estate broker with more than 4,000 home sales in Las Vegas, sees the Greystar lawsuit as symptomatic of a broader issue: the erosion of trust between tenants and landlords.
“When you hide fees or shift goalposts during the leasing process,” says Hawks, “you’re not just inconveniencing people—you’re undermining a fundamental business relationship.”
From a pragmatic standpoint, transparent pricing leads to more stable tenancies, fewer disputes, and a better community reputation. Hawks believes landlords who prioritize clear communication and honest advertising build lasting tenant relationships, reduce turnover, and avoid costly litigation.
Legal Fallout and Industry Reform
Should Greystar be found in violation of FTC regulations, the company could face substantial financial penalties. Additionally, courts may require restitution for impacted renters.
Regardless of the outcome, states are already mobilizing to push for reforms. Several lawmakers have proposed bills that would require full disclosure of all mandatory fees before lease submissions—potentially even integrating these disclosures into online listing portals.
Consumer watchdog groups, led by the National Consumer Law Center, are lobbying for uniform national standards that define transparent rental advertising. The Greystar case may become an inflection point that galvanizes long-needed regulatory updates to the industry.
Ethical Leasing and Investor Response
Some landlords and institutional investors have responded to the FTC’s efforts with initiatives to promote ethical leasing. This includes:
- Bundling all required monthly costs into a single advertised rent price.
- Increasing training for leasing agents around tenant rights and disclosure laws.
- Offering upfront lease drafts before asking for application deposits.
These measures not only comply with anticipated legal changes but also enhance tenant satisfaction and brand loyalty. Real estate investors who commit to clear, honest pricing may enjoy longer lease terms, fewer vacancies, and reduced legal exposure.
The FTC’s Broader Agenda
The crackdown on rental junk fees is part of a larger FTC initiative that targets ambiguous or misleading fee structures across sectors including travel, banking, education, and utilities. President Biden has cited elimination of junk fees as a key consumer protection goal during his administration.
Housing, however, holds a unique place due to its profound financial and emotional implications. Where you live determines everything from education access to job proximity, so any instability or manipulation in housing costs ripples widely through society.
The Greystar lawsuit, then, is not an isolated action, but part of a structural reset aimed at putting consumer clarity and fairness at the core of the real estate experience.
What It All Means for Las Vegas Renters and Investors
For renters, especially in fast-growing markets like Las Vegas, the implications are clear: demand transparency. The days of passive lease agreements may be numbered, and active, informed renters can avoid the biggest pitfalls of housing costs.
For investors, the case serves as a stark reminder that short-term boosts through hidden fees can have long-term consequences—legal, reputational, and operational.
Steve Hawks underscores this point, emphasizing that “The real value in property management lies not just in maximizing cash flow—but in delivering trust and service to renters who pay those rents.”
Renting vs. Owning: A Local Perspective
As rents rise in Las Vegas and fee-based pricing corrodes trust, many are reconsidering homeownership as an alternative. Not only are mortgage payments more predictable, but ownership also offers control over your living space—something renting cannot.
“Homeownership brings peace of mind in knowing your monthly payment won’t be riddled with hidden surprises,” says Hawks. While owning a home has barriers like down payments and credit requirements, it creates a level of predictability and autonomy that renting increasingly lacks.
If you’re a Las Vegas resident wrestling with convoluted leasing terms, now may be the time to talk to a local housing expert. Whether renting for the short term or buying for the long haul, the key lies in transparency, trust, and education.