Justice / Federal Courts
Progress and Pretium propose $49.75 million rental-pricing settlement
The FTC and four states allege hidden fees and deposit problems; the proposed order needs a judge’s approval.
Status: source-checked.
Progress Residential and owner Pretium Partners would pay $49.75 million under a proposed settlement of rental-pricing charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission and four states, the FTC announced Nov. 6. The agency said the complaint and proposed order were filed in federal court in northern Georgia.
The FTC and Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and Utah allege that advertised rents omitted mandatory fees and that renters faced problems with move-in conditions, security-deposit deductions and customer service. The agency also alleges that standardized contracts restricted negative comments. These are allegations, not findings established by this report.
Under the proposal as described by the FTC, $48.5 million would go to the agency for consumer redress and $1.25 million to Arizona. The agency says Progress would have to display the total monthly rent, including mandatory recurring fees, more prominently than other pricing information.
The proposed terms also address deposit accounting and property condition. According to the FTC, the companies would face restrictions on deductions for ordinary wear and tear and preexisting conditions, as well as requirements for itemized explanations of deductions after renters move out.
The FTC said the complaint attributes most of the conduct to prior management and acknowledges steps by new management to address the issues. The agency’s announcement states that stipulated orders take legal effect when approved and signed by a district judge; it does not establish that this proposal has already been entered.
What we know / what we don't
What we know
- The announced settlement is proposed, not represented as an entered court order.
- FTC describes redress allocation of $48.5m toFTC and $1.25m toArizona.
What we don't know
- The proposed court order and any subsequent approval were not independently reviewed; terms are attributed to the FTC announcement. No independent company response was reviewed.
The source record