What the FTC Comment Record Reveals About Rental Pricing Transparency

Executive Summary

The FTC’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on rental housing fee practices has drawn thousands of comments. Although not all submissions have been publicly posted, the available record already reflects a broad cross-section of stakeholders and a consistent set of themes across consumer advocates, industry participants, platform operators, and academic commentators.

Across these submissions, the central issue is not whether pricing transparency is desirable. It is how total housing cost should be calculated—and who is responsible for doing so.

At its core, the debate comes down to a simple question: who does the math—the housing provider or the renter?

While additional comments may add volume or nuance, the structure of the debate is already well-defined in the record available to date.

Rental Pricing Transparency: A Representative Record Is Already Visible

The FTC has reported receiving several thousand submissions in response to the ANPRM. Only a portion have been posted to the public docket so far. Based on prior rulemakings, this is not unusual. Agencies often filter out duplicative or form submissions, meaning the posted comments tend to reflect the core set of substantive input.

Even at this stage, the record includes participation from:

• national organizations such as NMHC and NAA, along with state and local apartment associations

• large operators and professional groups such as IREM

• consumer advocacy and legal aid organizations

• academic and policy commentators

• listing platforms and other ecosystem participants

That mix provides a meaningful and representative view of how different parts of the industry—and those who interact with it—are framing the issue.

Consumer and Legal Aid Submissions: A Consistent Experience

Consumer comments and legal aid submissions tell a very consistent story. Renters often cannot tell what housing actually costs until late in the leasing process.

Common themes include:

• mandatory fees disclosed only after a unit is selected

• multiple charges layered on top of base rent

• difficulty comparing listings that show only rent

• bundled or third-party services that are hard to evaluate

Put simply, renters are often required to piece together the total cost on their own. That “do the math” problem shows up again and again across the record.

While individual comments are anecdotal, the consistency of these experiences makes the broader pattern hard to ignore.

A Structured Debate Across Stakeholders

The discussion has moved beyond whether transparency is a good idea. There is now a clear debate about how to achieve it.

Academic and Economic Views

Academic commenters describe this as a structural pricing issue. Separating rent from mandatory fees can affect how consumers evaluate cost, especially when fees are introduced later in the process.

They also point to a practical challenge: if one operator shows a fully bundled price and another does not, the first may appear more expensive—even if the total cost is the same. That creates a disincentive to move first.

At the same time, some academic submissions acknowledge that rental housing is more complex than other industries where “all-in” pricing has been required, due to the mix of fixed, variable, and tenant-specific charges.

Enforcement and Consumer Protection

Submissions from state Attorneys General and advocacy groups reflect ongoing enforcement activity in this area. These comments describe late-stage fee disclosure as potentially misleading and emphasize that inconsistent pricing practices can affect both consumers and competition.

Importantly, this is not just a future regulatory issue. These submissions signal that pricing practices are already being examined under existing consumer protection laws.

For operators, that means price transparency is not something to defer until a final FTC rule is issued. It is already an area of active scrutiny.

Some advocacy groups go further, suggesting that certain types of fees should be limited or more closely tied to the value of the service provided. That introduces a second layer to the discussion: not just how pricing is shown, but what should be included.

Industry Trade Groups and Professional Organizations

Industry groups, including NMHC, NAA, and organizations such as IREM, focus on how pricing actually works in practice.

Their comments emphasize that rental pricing is not a single number. It can include charges that vary based on:

• tenant choices (e.g., pets, parking)

• property-specific services

• third-party providers

• timing within the leasing lifecycle

They generally support transparency as a concept, but raise concerns about whether a single, standardized total price can capture these variables accurately.

At the same time, the record shows that not all industry participants take the same view. At least one large national operator supports a total monthly leasing price model and has implemented it in practice.

That creates a noticeable tension. Some comments describe consolidated pricing as difficult to achieve, while others demonstrate that it is already being done in parts of the market.

Platforms and Market Intermediaries

Platforms such as Zillow highlight another key point: they are often the first place consumers encounter pricing, but they depend on the data they receive from operators.

This makes their role especially important. Platforms can display pricing, but they do not control how it is calculated upstream.

That dynamic reinforces a central theme in the record: no single participant controls the full price. Transparency depends on coordination across operators, vendors, and platforms.

Who Does the Math?

Today, pricing is spread across the leasing process. A renter may see one number in a listing, another at move-in, and additional charges during the lease. To understand the real cost, they have to put those pieces together themselves.

The question is whether that should continue.

• Should renters continue to assemble the total cost on their own?

• Or should housing providers calculate and present that number upfront?

Academic commenters suggest the market will not solve this on its own. Industry participants point out that the inputs are not always simple or static. Platforms can present pricing, but only if the underlying data is structured correctly.

The gap between those realities—what consumers expect versus how pricing actually works—is at the center of the current regulatory challenge.

The Role of State Law and Regulatory Fragmentation

Many jurisdictions now require enhanced fee disclosure or some form of total price presentation. However, these rules are not consistent. They vary in scope, terminology, and implementation.

That creates challenges for operators and platforms working across multiple markets.

State regulators themselves have noted this issue. From their perspective, a federal rule could provide a baseline standard—making pricing displays more consistent while allowing states to continue regulating fee practices more broadly.

Areas of Emerging Convergence

Despite the differences, several points of agreement are starting to emerge:

• the importance of distinguishing between mandatory and optional charges

• the difficulty of incorporating variable utilities into a single number

• the role of timing in how consumers understand pricing

There is also increasing evidence that some form of consolidated pricing is already achievable.

That makes the gap between “hard to do” and “already happening” more visible.

Core Implementation Questions

The record also highlights several core questions that will shape how any transparency framework is designed in practice:

• how to treat conditionally mandatory charges like parking or pets

• how to handle third-party and bundled services

• whether disclosure alone is enough

• how to balance consistency with real-world variability

Additional comments may add detail, but these issues are already clearly in focus.

What This Means for Multifamily Operators

The focus is shifting toward whether renters can see the full cost early enough to make meaningful comparisons.

For operators, that means looking beyond individual disclosures and considering how pricing works across the entire leasing process.

In practical terms:

• clearly define what is mandatory versus optional

• align pricing across listings and leasing workflows

• evaluate how early total cost is shown

• assess whether current systems can support more integrated pricing

Looking Ahead

The FTC’s next step would be a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which will provide a clearer indication of the likely scope and direction of any final rule.

Importantly, this is not about redefining rent. It is about how total cost is presented alongside it—often described as total monthly leasing price or a similar concept.

Conclusion

The FTC’s ANPRM process has surfaced a clear and structured debate about rental pricing.

At its core, the issue is straightforward:

Who should do the math?

As the rulemaking process moves forward, the challenge will be turning that question into a system that is both understandable for renters and workable across the industry.

About the Author

Glen Smith is the founder of Glen Smith Law LLC, a Georgia-based practice focused on multifamily pricing transparency and related fee disclosure practices. He previously served for more than 26 years in senior in-house legal roles at Greystar and Post Properties.