Greystar, the largest apartment manager in the United States, is facing several major lawsuits in California and at the federal level: a $7 million multistate antitrust settlement over algorithmic rent-setting, a $24 million federal and Colorado settlement over hidden rental fees, two active class actions in the Southern District of California targeting undisclosed junk fees, and a California Civil Rights Department settlement requiring the company to rewrite tenant screening policies at its roughly 333 California apartment complexes.1California Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Announces $7 Million Settlement With Greystar Together they give California renters several new avenues to challenge how Greystar prices apartments and screens applicants.
The Rent-Fixing Settlement With California and Eight Other States
In November 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a coalition of nine state attorneys general in announcing a $7 million settlement with Greystar Management Services LLC to resolve antitrust claims over its use of RealPage revenue management software. The participating states were California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, and Tennessee.2Illinois Attorney General. Attorney General Raoul Announces $7 Million Multi-State Settlement With Largest U.S. Landlord
The complaint, filed in January 2025, alleged that Greystar and other large landlords fed confidential rent, occupancy, and pricing data into RealPage’s algorithms, which then produced pricing recommendations that pushed competing properties’ rents up “in lockstep” instead of forcing landlords to compete.3Multifamily Dive. Greystar Settlement Over Rent-Setting Algorithms The states also alleged that landlords discussed pricing directly with rivals and attended RealPage-hosted meetings where competing property managers shared sensitive information.2Illinois Attorney General. Attorney General Raoul Announces $7 Million Multi-State Settlement With Largest U.S. Landlord
Under the proposed consent decree, Greystar agreed to stop using any pricing algorithm that incorporates competitors’ nonpublic data, stop sharing competitively sensitive information with rival landlords, and stop attending RealPage-hosted meetings of competing managers. The company must appoint an antitrust compliance officer within 30 days and accept a court-appointed monitor if it uses any third-party pricing algorithm not certified under the settlement.3Multifamily Dive. Greystar Settlement Over Rent-Setting Algorithms The $7 million went to state penalties and fees, not to direct tenant refunds.1California Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Announces $7 Million Settlement With Greystar
California renters who paid rent at Greystar-managed properties may still be able to recover money through a separate private class action, In re RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation, pending in the Middle District of Tennessee. In November 2025 the court granted preliminary approval to settlements totaling $141.8 million with 27 defendants, with Greystar contributing $50 million.4The Real Deal. Dozens of Owners Settle Rent Fixing Case, but Not RealPage The settlement class covers tenants who paid rent at properties owned or managed by the listed companies between October 2018 and November 2025, though the claims process has not yet opened.5RealPage Rental Settlement. RealPage Rental Software Antitrust Litigation Settlement
Hidden Fee Lawsuits: FTC Order and California Class Actions
A separate line of cases targets what Greystar advertised as monthly rent versus what tenants actually had to pay each month. In December 2025, the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Colorado sued Greystar for deceptively advertising rental prices by concealing mandatory fees. Greystar agreed to pay $24 million to resolve the case, with $23 million going to the FTC and $1 million to Colorado.6Federal Trade Commission. Greystar Agrees to Pay $24 Million, Stop Deceptive Advertising Practices
The FTC alleged that Greystar routinely advertised rents that excluded fees renters were required to pay for pest control, valet trash, package handling, utility administration, and media or smart home packages.7Multifamily Dive. FTC Alleges Greystar Hid Mandatory Fees From Advertised Rent Prospective tenants often discovered the charges only after handing over personal information, paying non-refundable application fees, or putting down holding deposits, sometimes finding the full costs buried in leases running 40 to 60 pages. Greystar allegedly refused to refund those application fees or deposits to applicants who walked away once they learned the true cost.8Federal Trade Commission. Lessons From the FTC’s Lawsuit Against Greystar
The stipulated order, entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on December 12, 2025, requires Greystar to display the total monthly rent, including all mandatory fees, more prominently than any partial price. The company must disclose the existence, amount, nature, and purpose of every fee, and specify whether each fee is mandatory or optional, all before accepting any payment from an applicant.9Global Policy Watch. Greystar’s $24 Million Settlement Signals FTC Crackdown on Hidden Rental Fees The FTC and Colorado can enforce compliance for ten years, including by demanding sworn reports, taking depositions, inspecting documents, and sending undercover investigators posing as prospective tenants.10Federal Trade Commission. Stipulated Order – FTC v. Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC
California Class Actions Over Junk Fees
Two proposed class actions in the Southern District of California go after similar practices under California state law.
Lewis v. Greystar California, Inc., filed in September 2024, alleges that Greystar charged tenants a “Utility Admin Fee” of $1 to $5 per month that was not disclosed in advertised rental prices. Plaintiff Jasmine Lewis calls the fee a “pure profit generator” with no meaningful connection to actual utility administration costs and accuses Greystar of inflating base rent by hiding the charge until renters had already paid non-refundable application fees. The complaint brings claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.11ClassAction.org. Lewis v. Greystar California, Inc.
Wu, et al. v. Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC, filed in April 2025 by Kaidi Wu and Juhyun So, targets mandatory undisclosed fees for pest control and trash services. It invokes California’s Honest Pricing Act (SB 478), which took effect in July 2024 and prohibits businesses from advertising prices that leave out mandatory fees. The proposed class covers California consumers who were charged a mandatory fee exceeding the advertised or contracted rental rate over the past six years. Both cases remain in active litigation.12Top Class Actions. Class Action Accuses Greystar of Illegal Junk Fees in Rent Pricing
Fair Housing Settlement Over Criminal Record Screening
In January 2026, the California Civil Rights Department announced that Greystar California, Inc. had agreed to review and revise its tenant screening policies statewide after a prospective renter filed a fair housing complaint. The complaint alleged that an application at a 369-unit luxury complex in Hollywood (formerly known as Rise Hollywood) was denied based on an unrelated misdemeanor, with no opportunity to explain the circumstances.13California Civil Rights Department. Major Property Management Company to Review and Revise Tenant Screening Policies Statewide
Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, blanket bans on renters with criminal records can violate fair housing law because such policies tend to disproportionately affect Black and Latino applicants and often skip the individualized assessment the law requires. Greystar settled without admitting liability, agreeing to pay the complainant $10,000, overhaul screening policies across its roughly 333 California apartment complexes to prohibit automatic rejections based on criminal history, and require designated staff in Southern California to complete at least three hours of fair housing training.13California Civil Rights Department. Major Property Management Company to Review and Revise Tenant Screening Policies Statewide
What California Renters Can Do Now
Several California laws now regulate the kinds of charges at issue in the Greystar cases. SB 478, the Honest Pricing Act, requires that any advertised price for a consumer good or service include all mandatory fees, with narrow exceptions for government taxes and shipping charges. Violations can carry penalties of $1,000 per incident in class actions, plus restitution, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages.14Federal Register. Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Rental Housing Fee Practices
Additional California legislation that took effect January 1, 2025, expanded tenant protections further. SB 611 prohibits landlords from charging tenants fees for delivering legal notices or paying rent by check. AB 2493 requires landlords to process rental applications in the order received and refund screening fees to applicants they don’t select. AB 2801 restricts the use of security deposits for routine cleaning or maintenance unless the landlord can document that the expense was reasonably necessary.15National Low Income Housing Coalition. Several New Tenant Protections Went Into Effect for Renters in California
If you rented from a Greystar-managed California property between October 2018 and November 2025, watch for notice of the RealPage private class action claims process, which had not yet opened as of the preliminary settlement approval. If you were charged undisclosed pest control, valet trash, utility administration, package, or media fees on top of advertised rent, those charges are the exact conduct at issue in both the FTC order and the pending California class actions. And if you were denied an apartment at a Greystar property based on a criminal record without an individualized review, the company’s settlement with the California Civil Rights Department now expressly bars that practice at its California complexes.