Progress Residential would have to advertise the full monthly price of its single-family rentals under a $49.75 million settlement proposed by the Federal Trade Commission and four states on November 6, 2026. The FTC and state authorities filed the proposed order and a complaint against the rental manager and its private equity owner, Pretium Partners, in federal court in Georgia. The proposal would also change how the companies handle security deposits.

Key facts

  • The proposed payments are $48.5 million to the FTC for consumer redress and $1.25 million to Arizona.
  • Progress would have to make the total monthly rent, including mandatory recurring charges, the most prominent price in its advertising.
  • The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
  • Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and Utah joined the FTC in the case.

Which costs would renters see up front?

Regulators allege Progress advertised a monthly price that omitted mandatory fees. The FTC cited charges for smart-home features and utility management among the fees at issue. It also described a separate charge for renters who failed to provide proof of insurance, which it says many first discovered on a monthly bill. The complaint alleges that hidden fees have cost consumers tens of millions of dollars since at least 2021.

The proposed advertising requirement changes the number a prospective renter would see first. A compulsory charge billed every month would have to appear in the advertised total rather than being left for a separate line later in the process. The proposal also bars misleading statements about the total cost. That matters when applicants compare homes that have similar advertised rents but different recurring fees.

The FTC says Progress manages more than 90,000 homes in 17 states through properties owned by Pretium investment funds. The agency’s case file identifies Progress and Pretium as the defendants and lists the matter as pending. The case names the property manager and its owner, so the proposed payments and operating requirements reach both defendants. The requirement to feature the all-in monthly price in advertising applies specifically to Progress.

What would change at move-out?

The complaint alleges Progress kept portions of deposits for ordinary wear, conditions that existed before tenants arrived and work that was the companies’ responsibility. It also alleges that many tenants failed to receive the itemized statements they had been promised. The proposed order would require consistent withholding standards and records of property conditions. It would also require an itemized explanation of deposit deductions or charges within 30 days of move-out or within the time required under state law.

The proposed terms extend to claims that homes were inspected before move-in. The companies would be barred from misrepresenting those inspections. The order would also bar mandatory standardized clauses that prevent customers from making negative comments, addressing another practice alleged in the complaint.

A representative for Progress and Pretium told HousingWire that the companies dispute the FTC’s claims, maintain that Progress’s practices were fair and transparent, and made no admission of wrongdoing in the agreement. The proposed order would take effect once approved and signed by the district judge. The FTC’s announcement identified the proposed redress fund without giving a timetable for payments to individual renters.