Penalty Amount
$48,000,000
Consumers Affected
444,131
Consumer fraud case where the FTC settled with Invitation Homes for deceiving renters with undisclosed fees and unlawful charges, including hidden fees and unfair security deposit withholdings. The company must pay over $47.2 million in refunds to affected consumers and change its leasing practices.
Invitation Homes must pay $48 million in consumer refunds, clearly disclose lease prices, establish fair security deposit policies, cease deceptive practices, and comply with a consent order.
In-house legal teams at real estate and property management companies should review residential lease agreements to ensure all fees (including smart home technology, utility management, and other ancillary services) are clearly disclosed upfront in plain language. Vendor contracts with service providers (e.g., smart home tech, utility management, deposit refund administrators) should include explicit prohibitions on undisclosed fees and requirements to itemize all charges. Security deposit handling procedures and related contracts should be updated to align with fair refund policies, explicitly excluding normal wear and tear from deductible damages and prohibiting charges for pre-existing damage or renovations. Lease clauses should be revised to remove deceptive fee structures and ensure full compliance with FTC deceptive practices standards.
Entity
Invitation Homes
Industry
Real EstateOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/03/ftc-sends-checks-totaling-more-472-million-consumers-deceived-invitation-homes-undisclosed-fees
ftc takes action against invitation homes deceiving renters
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-takes-action-against-invitation-homes-deceiving-renters-charging-junk-fees-withholding-security
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Invitation Homes"
"turn over $48 million"
"deceiving applicants about lease costs, charging renters undisclosed fees, failing to inspect homes before residents moved in, and unfairly withholding tenants’ security deposits when they moved out."
$930K
The FTC finalized orders requiring CMG Media Corporation (doing business as Cox Media Group), MindSift LLC, and 1010 Digital Works LLC to pay a total of $930,000 for falsely claiming they offered an AI-powered service that could target ads based on conversations captured from consumers' smart devices, and that consumers had opted into such targeting. The orders also prohibit the companies from making misrepresentations about their advertising services, voice data collection, and consumer consent.
The FTC announced it is seeking public comment on a proposed enforcement policy statement regarding personalized pricing, which is the use of personal data to set prices based on what a company believes an individual consumer is willing to spend. The statement warns that undisclosed collection or use of personal data for personalized pricing could violate the FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices. The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the Federal Register notice.
$4.0M
The FTC and Connecticut secured a $4 million settlement with Chase Nissan LLC (doing business as Manchester City Nissan) over allegations the dealership charged consumers unauthorized fees, including double-charging for 'certified pre-owned' vehicles and inserting charges like total loss protection into financing agreements without consent. The settlement requires $4 million in consumer redress, prohibits misrepresentations about vehicle certification and warranties, mandates prominent disclosure of the maximum total vehicle price, and requires express informed consent for all charges.
The FTC filed a complaint against Credit Glory LLC and related entities for deceptive credit repair practices, including false promises, impersonating debt collectors, charging illegal upfront fees, and using negative option billing without consent. A federal court temporarily halted the operation.
The FTC issued a policy statement abandoning disparate-impact liability, stating it will no longer bring claims based on this theory. It also modified compliance obligations for several companies based on past decisions.
The FTC, along with Utah and California, filed a complaint against Hims & Hers alleging the telehealth provider shared consumers' sensitive health information with third-party advertising platforms without consent, and deceived consumers about billing and cancellation practices. The complaint alleges violations of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act.