Progress Residential $49.75 Million Settlement, Which Renters Could Receive Refunds for Hidden Fees?

Progress Residential, one of America’s largest single-family rental home managers, has agreed to a proposed $49.75 million settlement after federal and state regulators accused the company of advertising misleading rental prices, charging hidden fees and improperly withholding tenants’ security deposits.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the agreement on November 6, 2026, together with the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado and Indiana and Utah’s Division of Consumer Protection. The agreement resolves claims against Progress Residential LLC and its private-equity owner, Pretium Partners LLC. The FTC has described it as the largest enforcement action against a landlord in its history.

Of the total settlement, $48.5 million is designated for potential consumer relief, while another $1.25 million would go to Arizona for attorneys’ fees and costs.

The allegations involve rental practices affecting consumers across Progress Residential’s portfolio of more than 90,000 homes in 17 states.

According to regulators, renters were frequently attracted by advertised monthly prices that excluded mandatory charges. The actual cost of renting a home could be $30 to $330 or more per month higher than the advertised price, depending on the property and applicable fees. Regulators allege these practices have cost renters tens of millions of dollars in undisclosed fees.

Regulators also allege the company charged improper move-out expenses, failed to refund certain holding fees, misrepresented property conditions and restricted renters from posting negative reviews.

The important question for renters is whether they can receive money from the $48.5 million consumer-relief portion.

The answer is that potential refunds are part of the proposed agreement, but the FTC has not announced who qualifies, how much individuals will receive, whether a claim form will be required or when payments will begin.

The agreement also requires approval by a federal judge before it becomes an enforceable court order. Progress and Pretium denied wrongdoing as part of the agreement.

Important: This article reports allegations made in a court filing and the terms of a proposed settlement. Allegations are not findings of wrongdoing. This is general legal information, not legal advice.

Key Takeaways

• The total proposed resolution is $49.75 million: $48.5 million to the FTC for consumer redress and $1.25 million to Arizona.
• This is a government enforcement settlement, not a class action. There is no claim form, deadline or eligibility list yet.
• The proposed order is not final until the federal court enters it.
• The companies deny wrongdoing.
• Renters should keep records and watch ftc.gov/refunds. They should not pay anyone to “file a claim.”
• A separate Florida eviction-fees settlement involving Progress has different rules and is not part of this case.

Progress Residential FTC Settlement: Quick Facts

Detail	Latest verified information
Settlement announced	November 6, 2026
Total proposed settlement	$49.75 million
Intended consumer relief	$48.5 million
Additional payment to Arizona	$1.25 million
Companies involved	Progress Residential LLC and Pretium Partners LLC
Federal agency	Federal Trade Commission
State plaintiffs	Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and Utah
Federal case	FTC et al. v. Progress Residential LLC et al.
Case number	1:26-cv-06782-VMC
Court	U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia
Assigned judge	Victoria M. Calvert
FTC file number	2423073
Properties managed	More than 90,000 in 17 states
Alleged practices	Hidden rental fees, improper deposits, misleading property conditions and review restrictions
Alleged conduct period	Since at least 2021
Settlement status	Proposed; court order pending
Refund eligibility	Not yet announced
Individual payment	Not determined
Claim form	Not available
Refund deadline	Not announced
Refund distribution date	Not announced
Official updates	https://www.ftc.gov/refunds

What Does the Complaint Allege?

The FTC and the states allege that, since at least 2021, Progress and Pretium engaged in several practices that harmed renters, including:

• Advertising monthly rental prices that did not include mandatory recurring fees (such as smart home fees, utility management fees, air filter fees and others), leading consumers to discover higher true costs after applying or moving in.
• Charging various hidden or inadequately disclosed one-time and situational fees.
• Failing to properly inspect homes before residents moved in and misrepresenting properties as move-in ready.
• Improperly deducting amounts from security deposits, including for normal wear and tear or pre-existing damage.
• Restricting negative reviews through contract provisions.
• Providing inadequate customer service in response to maintenance and billing complaints.

The FTC has said these practices allegedly cost renters tens of millions of dollars in undisclosed fees.

Who Could Qualify for Progress Residential Settlement Refunds?

The proposed settlement is intended to provide financial relief to consumers harmed by the practices described in the FTC’s complaint.

Potentially affected consumers could include current and former Progress Residential renters who paid undisclosed mandatory fees or experienced improper security deposit deductions.

However, the FTC has not published a final refund eligibility definition.

This means renters should distinguish between being potentially affected by the alleged conduct and being officially approved to receive compensation.

Current or former Progress Residential renters

People who leased homes managed by Progress Residential during the relevant period may be among those considered for relief.

The complaint describes practices occurring since at least 2021.

That does not mean January 1, 2021, is an officially approved eligibility cutoff.

The FTC must determine the actual eligibility criteria for any refund distribution.

Renters who paid hidden mandatory fees

Consumers who paid mandatory charges not included in advertised rent may be potential refund recipients.

Examples include smart home, utility management, landscaping and pest-control fees. Reporting also describes fees tied to renters’ insurance requirements.

Former renters who lost part of their security deposit

The FTC alleges Progress improperly deducted money for ordinary wear and tear, existing property conditions and renovations that should not have been charged to tenants.

People who experienced those deductions may also be affected.

Rental applicants who paid application or holding fees

The complaint raises concerns about nonrefundable application fees and holding fees collected before the actual rental cost was clearly disclosed.

It also alleges failures to refund certain holding fees as promised.

However, it is not yet known whether people who applied but never moved in will qualify for the FTC’s refund program.

That determination must come from official refund instructions.

What Were the Hidden Fees Progress Residential Allegedly Charged?

The FTC’s 125-page complaint identifies numerous fees that regulators say were improperly disclosed or assessed.

According to the government’s allegations:

Fee	Amount described in complaint
Smart home fee	17–30 monthly
Utility management fee	7.95–9.99 monthly
Air filter fee	$9.99 monthly
Pool fee	100–175 monthly
Septic tank fee	$40 monthly
Resident benefit package	$15 monthly
Landscaping fee	35–120 monthly
Pest control fee	$10 monthly

These figures describe charges alleged in the complaint. Not every fee applied to every renter or property.

Why does the FTC consider these fees potentially deceptive?

The central issue is how the total price was presented.

A rental listing might advertise a home at a particular monthly rate, but the consumer would later discover mandatory additional charges.

The FTC alleges that applicants often learned the actual monthly cost only after paying application fees, reserving a property or receiving the lease and cost sheet.

By that stage, some consumers had already made moving arrangements or given notice to a previous landlord.

The government argues that failing to disclose the true required monthly rental price interfered with renters’ ability to compare properties and make informed financial decisions. In its release, the FTC said the companies “moved fees around” in ways that obscured the true cost of renting.

Did Renters Really Pay $330 More Than Advertised?

The complaint alleges that the mandatory fees caused some renters to pay approximately $30 to $330 or more per month above the advertised rate.

That does not mean every resident overpaid exactly $330.

For illustration, if a renter paid $100 in qualifying extra monthly charges for 24 months, those charges would total $2,400.

But this example is not an FTC refund calculation.

The amount someone might receive depends on whatever eligibility rules and allocation method the FTC eventually establishes.

There is currently no approved per-month reimbursement rate.

What About Progress Residential’s Security Deposit Practices?

The FTC alleges the company improperly retained some or all of certain tenants’ security deposits.

According to the complaint, residents were charged for problems such as:

• Ordinary wear and tear.
• Damage that existed before they moved in.
• Cleaning or painting not attributable to tenant-caused damage beyond normal use.
• Renovations or improvements that were the landlord’s responsibility.
• Certain replacement and repair costs not properly chargeable to renters.

Regulators also allege Progress promised itemized security deposit statements within 30 days of move-out but failed to provide them to many consumers.

Can former renters recover security deposits?

Potentially through the future FTC refund process or separate remedies where applicable.

But the proposed agreement has not yet established which security deposit deductions will qualify for consumer redress.

The FTC will need to determine whether it can identify affected renters and calculate appropriate payments from available records.

Separately, each state has its own security deposit statute that sets deadlines and permitted deductions. See the legal section below. A renter with an individual deposit dispute may have rights under those laws regardless of this settlement.

What Did the FTC Allege About Homes Advertised as Move-In Ready?

The complaint alleges that Progress represented homes as inspected, clean and ready for occupancy despite unresolved problems.

Regulators describe consumer complaints involving maintenance, cleaning, appliances, plumbing and heating or cooling systems.

The lawsuit also alleges that Progress used photo-editing practices that could make listings appear more attractive than the properties’ actual condition.

According to the complaint, marketing guidance discussed altering photographs to address visible dirt, landscaping conditions and even missing appliances.

These are allegations contained in the government’s filing, not separate findings of liability by a judge.

Why Are Negative Reviews Part of the Settlement?

The government also alleges that Progress used contract provisions restricting tenants from publishing unfavorable statements about the company.

Such provisions reportedly appeared in certain account-adjustment, early-termination and relocation-assistance agreements.

Regulators say these restrictions conflicted with federal protections for honest consumer reviews.

Under the proposed order, Progress and Pretium would be prohibited from offering or enforcing covered review-restricting contract terms.

That requirement is intended to protect renters’ ability to communicate about their experiences without being subjected to unlawful contractual restrictions.

How Is the $49.75 Million Settlement Divided?

The financial breakdown is important because not all of the money is intended to be distributed to renters.

Settlement component	Amount	Purpose
FTC monetary relief	$48,500,000	Potential consumer redress and permitted administration or related relief
Arizona payment	$1,250,000	State attorneys’ fees and costs
Total	$49,750,000	Proposed combined resolution

The proposed order gives the FTC authority to administer consumer relief.

It also permits certain related uses of remaining funds if direct consumer refunds are impracticable.

Any money that cannot be used for the permitted relief would be deposited into the U.S. Treasury.

The agreement does not guarantee that the entire $48.5 million will be divided equally among tenants.

Administration costs, eligibility decisions and other permitted uses can affect the total distributed. Some news outlets have loosely described the full $49.75 million as going to renters; that is not accurate, because $1.25 million is designated for Arizona.

When Will Progress Residential Refunds Be Sent?

No refund payment date has been announced.

There are two separate schedules that readers should not confuse.

The first is the schedule for Progress and Pretium to pay money to the FTC.

The second, which has not yet been announced, would govern any distribution from the FTC to affected renters.

How will the companies pay the FTC?

Under the proposed order, the companies would pay:

• $4.5 million within 10 days after the order is entered.
• Eleven subsequent installments of $4 million each, generally at 30-day intervals.

Those installments add up to $48.5 million.

Arizona would receive its separate $1.25 million payment within 30 days after entry of the order.

The installment schedule would begin only after the judge enters the agreement as a court order.

Does this mean renters will receive checks within 30 days?

No.

The installment schedule concerns payments to the government, not directly to tenants.

The FTC must still administer consumer redress.

On its general refund-information page, the agency explains that it ordinarily needs customer records, sufficient funds and an approved allocation process before distributing payments.

The FTC’s general goal of sending refunds within six months after obtaining the necessary money and data is not a promised timeline for this particular settlement.

Is There a Progress Residential Settlement Claim Form?

No official FTC claim form has been announced as of November 11, 2026.

There is no confirmed claims administrator, approved payment calculator or consumer filing deadline.

The FTC typically handles refund cases in one of two ways.

It may use reliable customer records supplied by a company to send refunds directly.

Alternatively, the agency may create a claims process when it needs additional information from affected consumers.

The proposed Progress Residential order requires the companies to provide information needed for consumer redress. It says they have already supplied relevant data and must provide additional requested records.

That could assist the FTC in identifying potential recipients.

However, it does not establish that refunds will definitely be automatic.

The official source for future updates is:

https://www.ftc.gov/refunds

Does the Settlement Cover Renters Outside the Four States?

Potentially.

Although Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and Utah joined the FTC action, Progress operates nationally and manages homes in 17 states.

The federal government’s consumer-protection claims are not limited to those four jurisdictions.

The proposed order describes home rental services involving residential properties throughout the United States.

Therefore, renters outside the four participating states should not automatically assume they are excluded.

But the FTC has not announced a final geographic eligibility rule for refunds.

A state being named as a plaintiff is not, by itself, the test for compensation eligibility.

What Changes Would Progress Residential Be Required to Make?

The proposed settlement is not limited to financial payments.

It also contains extensive business-practice requirements. The stipulated order provides for permanent injunctive relief and a monetary judgment.

Clear disclosure of total monthly rent

Progress would have to advertise the “true total monthly rental price,” including all mandatory recurring fees, more prominently than other rental pricing information.

Variable utility costs and genuinely optional charges would be treated differently under the order’s definitions.

Fairer security deposit practices

The company would be required to establish clear standards for withholding deposits, document the reasons for deductions and train employees on applicable law.

Tenants would also have rights under the order to request certain inspection records and photographs.

Home inspections and related disclosures

The order includes requirements addressing pre-move-in home inspections and related disclosures about property condition.

Itemized statements

The order would require an itemized explanation of deductions or charges within 30 days after move-out, or sooner where state law or the lease requires.

No improper review restrictions

The companies would be barred from offering or trying to enforce covered contractual provisions that suppress consumer reviews.

Improved customer-service practices

The order would prohibit certain late fees, eviction threats and other remedies when a tenant’s inability to pay resulted from problems with the company’s payment portal.

It also addresses procedures for resolving maintenance and billing disputes.

These requirements would become enforceable upon court approval and entry of the stipulated order.

Did Progress Residential Admit Wrongdoing?

No.

Progress Residential and Pretium Partners agreed to the proposed settlement without admitting the allegations.

According to Reuters’ November 6 reporting, the companies disputed the FTC’s claims and defended their practices.

Pretium stated that the agreement would allow the companies to move forward and said Progress had adopted improvements in rental pricing transparency.

The FTC’s own announcement acknowledges that much of the alleged conduct occurred under previous management and that new management had made changes intended to address the problems.

The complaint remains a statement of the government’s allegations, while the proposed order represents the parties’ negotiated resolution.

What Laws Are Involved?

The case includes federal and state consumer-protection claims.

FTC Act, Section 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45)

Section 5(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.

• Deception generally involves a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead reasonable consumers and is material to their decisions. Advertising a rental price that excludes mandatory monthly fees is a classic “drip pricing” theory.
• Unfairness under 15 U.S.C. § 45(n) requires substantial consumer injury that consumers cannot reasonably avoid and that is not outweighed by benefits to consumers or competition.

The government alleges the advertised rental prices and certain fee practices were misleading or unfair.

Consumer Review Fairness Act (15 U.S.C. § 45b)

Under 15 U.S.C. § 45b, businesses generally cannot use prohibited form-contract provisions to restrict consumers from publishing honest reviews or assessments. Violations are treated as violations of an FTC rule, which can support civil penalties.

The FTC alleges Progress used such provisions in certain tenant agreements.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq.)

The complaint also raises allegations involving financial customer information under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Section 521 of the Act (15 U.S.C. § 6821) prohibits obtaining customer financial information from a financial institution or a consumer through false pretenses.

The proposed order includes restrictions against using false representations to obtain protected financial information.

How can the FTC obtain money for consumers?

Authority	Notes
FTC Act Section 13(b) (15 U.S.C. § 53(b))	Permits injunctions, but in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, 593 U.S. 67 (2021), the U.S. Supreme Court held it does not authorize equitable monetary relief such as restitution.
FTC Act Section 19 (15 U.S.C. § 57b)	Allows consumer redress in certain cases, including for violations of FTC rules and after administrative orders.
Civil penalties (15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A))	Available for knowing violations of rules such as those enforced through the Consumer Review Fairness Act.
Stipulated order	Parties can agree to a monetary judgment in a court-entered order. A violation of the order can later be enforced through contempt proceedings.

State consumer-protection statutes

Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and Utah also assert claims under their respective consumer-protection laws. These provide additional grounds for challenging the alleged conduct.

State	Principal consumer-protection law
Arizona	Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq.)
Colorado	Colorado Consumer Protection Act (C.R.S. § 6-1-101 et seq.)
Indiana	Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-1 et seq.)
Utah	Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (Utah Code § 13-11-1 et seq.)

Other laws renters should know about

These laws are not necessarily pleaded in this case, but they form the legal backdrop for rental fee and deposit disputes:

Law	Why it matters
State security deposit statutes (for example A.R.S. § 33-1321, C.R.S. § 38-12-101 et seq., Ind. Code § 32-31-3, Utah Code § 57-17, O.C.G.A. § 44-7-30 et seq.)	Set deadlines for returning deposits, require itemized deductions and generally bar charges for ordinary wear and tear. Deadlines and penalties differ by state and may include multiples of the wrongfully withheld amount. Check your state’s current statute.
FTC Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (16 C.F.R. Part 464)	Effective May 2025, it requires all-in pricing, but it applies only to live-event tickets and short-term lodging, not long-term residential leases. This is why the FTC used Section 5 here.
State “junk fee” and total-price laws	A growing number of states require advertised prices to include mandatory fees. Colorado reportedly enacted such a law taking effect in 2026. Check current state law before relying on it.
Federal Fair Credit Billing and state dispute rights	May help renters who paid by credit card dispute certain billing errors, subject to deadlines.
State landlord-tenant acts	Govern habitability, repairs and move-in condition, relevant to the “move-in ready” allegations.

Is This a Class Action Settlement?

No.

This is a government enforcement action brought by the FTC and four state jurisdictions.

It is not a conventional Rule 23 private class action in which a court certifies a group of renters, sends class notices and establishes an opt-out period.

That difference matters because the government, not private class counsel, will determine how its consumer-redress program operates.

Renters cannot currently join a certified FTC class or submit a court-approved claims form.

Is This the Same as Progress Residential’s Florida Eviction Fees Settlement?

No. Progress Residential is involved in another settlement already covered by AllAboutLawyer.

The separate case is Progress Residential Eviction Fees Settlement, Check If You Qualify, Johnsten v. Progress Residential, LLC, No. 2024-CA-001692.

That Florida class action concerns eviction-related attorneys’ fees allegedly assessed before a court awarded them.

Its settlement involves different legal claims, a different court and a separate class-member payment process.

Issue	New FTC settlement	Florida eviction-fees settlement
Principal concern	Hidden rent charges, deposit deductions and other rental practices	Eviction attorneys’ fees
Proposed settlement amount	$49.75 million	Approximately $556,387 class fund
Court	Federal court in Georgia	Florida state court
Legal structure	Government enforcement	Private class action
Refund process	Not announced	Automatic benefits under settlement rules
Relevant deadline	Not announced for FTC refunds	November 20, 2026 exclusion/objection deadline

A renter could have questions about both matters, but participation or eligibility in one does not establish entitlement under the other.

How Does This Compare With Other Rental Fee Settlements?

Other cases illustrate why landlords’ fee practices have attracted consumer litigation.

For example, $3.86M Pegasus Residential Virginia Fee Settlement, Did You Pay Pest, Community, or Lease Admin Fees? You May Get Automatic Cash concerns disputed tenant fees in Virginia.

Another major rental-pricing matter is RealPage $359.9 Million Rent Settlement Gets Final Approval, Who Qualifies and How to Claim by January 29, 2027.

The RealPage litigation concerns alleged rent-price coordination through property-management software, rather than the deceptive fee-disclosure practices alleged in the Progress FTC case.

Those settlements have different eligibility rules and claims procedures.

What happened in the earlier Invitation Homes FTC case?

The FTC previously obtained a $48 million settlement with Invitation Homes, announced in 2024, involving allegations of hidden rental fees and improper deposit deductions.

The FTC later announced it was sending more than $47.2 million to over 444,000 affected consumers.

That example shows that FTC enforcement cases can produce actual renter refunds.

But it does not mean the Progress Residential case will use the same eligibility rules, refund amounts or distribution schedule.

What Should Current and Former Progress Residential Renters Do Now?

Renters who believe they were affected should preserve their financial and rental records while waiting for official FTC instructions.

Useful records include rental agreements, advertised listing prices, monthly payment statements, fee schedules, move-in condition reports, security deposit deductions and correspondence, application receipts and customer-service communications.

If you disputed charges or property conditions, keep relevant photographs, emails and correspondence.

Monitor the official FTC website (ftc.gov) and any notices from Progress Residential for updates.

You can also report suspected deceptive or unfair conduct to the FTC at:

https://reportfraud.ftc.gov

A consumer complaint can help regulators understand the circumstances, but it is not a claim for settlement compensation.

What if you moved out years ago?

Former renters may still be relevant to the case.

The FTC’s allegations concern conduct stretching back to at least 2021.

However, there is no confirmed eligibility cutoff for a future refund program.

Former residents should watch the official FTC refund website rather than assuming their tenancy date qualifies or disqualifies them.

What if a website asks for your bank details to release a refund?

Be cautious.

The FTC does not require people to pay processing fees to receive legitimate refunds.

Avoid third parties soliciting fees to “help” file claims related to this settlement, as no public claims process has been announced.

A payment program should be verified through the official FTC refunds website before providing sensitive information.

Do you have an individual dispute?

Renters with a current dispute over fees or a withheld deposit may have rights under their lease and state law independent of this settlement. Consider contacting your state attorney general, a local tenant-rights organization or a licensed attorney.

Progress Residential FTC Settlement Timeline

Date	Development
2021 onward	Period during which FTC alleges various hidden-fee practices
2022–2024	Complaint describes recurring complaints and internal discussions
November 2024	Progress learns of FTC investigation, according to complaint
October 9, 2026	Company representatives sign proposed stipulated order
November 6, 2026	FTC and four states file complaint and proposed $49.75 million resolution
November 9, 2026	Utah publishes additional settlement announcement
November 11, 2026	FTC case remains pending; no refund program announced
Court entry of stipulated order	Not independently confirmed
FTC consumer eligibility announcement	Not announced
Consumer claim deadline	Not announced
First renter refund distribution	Not announced

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Progress Residential $49.75 million settlement real?

Yes. The FTC and four states filed a proposed $49.75 million resolution in federal court on November 6, 2026.

How much of the settlement is for renters?

The agreement allocates $48.5 million to the FTC for potential consumer relief and permitted related expenses or uses.

Who qualifies for a refund?

The FTC has not announced final eligibility rules. Potentially affected groups include renters who paid allegedly hidden fees or experienced improper charges.

Can former Progress Residential tenants qualify?

Potentially. The allegations concern practices dating back to at least 2021, but no official refund period has been established.

Can renters outside Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and Utah receive money?

Potentially. The FTC’s case involves nationwide rental practices. No final geographic refund rule has been announced.

Is there a Progress Residential settlement claim form?

No. The FTC has not opened a consumer claim process.

Do renters need to submit receipts now?

No official document-submission process has been established. Keep records in case they become relevant later.

How much will each person get?

The FTC has not determined or published individual amounts.

Will everyone receive $500 or $1,000?

There is no basis for promising either amount.

When will settlement checks arrive?

No distribution date has been announced.

Does the November 6 announcement mean the court approved the settlement?

No. The agreement was filed for judicial approval. The federal court must enter the stipulated order for it to become enforceable.

Was this a class action?

No. It is an enforcement action brought by the FTC and four state plaintiffs.

Does Progress Residential admit wrongdoing?

No. The companies deny the allegations and entered the proposed agreement without admitting liability.

Are security deposit deductions included?

Improper security deposit practices are among the government’s allegations. The FTC has not specified which losses will qualify for refunds.

What if I only paid a rental application fee?

The complaint discusses application and holding fees, but it is not yet clear which applicants may qualify for future consumer relief.

What is the “true total monthly rental price” rule?

Under the proposed order, Progress must advertise the monthly rent including all mandatory recurring fees more prominently than other pricing information.

Is this the largest FTC action against a landlord?

The FTC has described it as the largest enforcement matter against a landlord in its history.

How will the FTC announce refunds?

Official programs are published at https://www.ftc.gov/refunds, including information about eligibility, payments and any necessary claims procedures.

What Happens Next?

The federal court in the Northern District of Georgia must decide whether to enter the stipulated order. Once entered, the payment schedule to the FTC begins, the business-practice requirements become enforceable, and the FTC can begin planning its refund process, including determining eligibility, reviewing company records and deciding whether a claim process is needed.

This case is part of broader FTC efforts addressing housing costs and “junk fees” in rental markets. AllAboutLawyer.com will update this article when the court enters the order or the FTC announces a refund program.

The Bottom Line

Progress Residential and Pretium Partners have agreed to a proposed $49.75 million settlement over allegations involving hidden rental fees, misleading advertised prices, security deposit deductions and other unfair rental practices.

Of that amount, $48.5 million is intended for potential consumer redress.

The case could eventually provide refunds to qualifying renters, including people who no longer live in Progress-managed homes.

But no eligibility list, refund amount, consumer claim form or payment deadline has been announced.

The companies deny wrongdoing, and the stipulated order requires court approval.

For now, affected renters should preserve their records and follow the FTC’s official refund announcements rather than paying or registering through unofficial claims websites. For the most accurate and up-to-date information, refer directly to official FTC announcements rather than secondary sources.

Official Sources and Court Documents

1. FTC — Progress Residential and Pretium Partners $49.75 Million Settlement Announcement, November 6, 2026 — Official settlement announcement and allegations.
2. FTC — Federal Case Page, Matter No. 2423073 — Case status, complaint and proposed order.
3. FTC — Original Federal Complaint (PDF) — November 6, 2026, 125-page complaint describing the alleged practices.
4. FTC — Proposed Stipulated Settlement Order (PDF) — Proposed $48.5 million monetary judgment, payment schedule and required business reforms.
5. Federal Court Docket — FTC v. Progress Residential LLC, No. 1:26-cv-06782 — Case filing and motion for entry of stipulated order.
6. FTC Consumer Advice — Progress Residential Hidden Fees — Guidance for renters.
7. Utah Department of Commerce — November 9, 2026 Settlement Announcement — Additional state enforcement details.
8. FTC — Refund Programs — Official source for announcements about consumer distributions.
9. FTC — How Refund Programs Work — Eligibility review, customer lists and payment procedures.
10. FTC — Report Fraud — Government complaint submission portal.
11. Reuters — Progress Residential Agrees to Resolve Hidden-Fee Charges, November 6, 2026 — Independent reporting and company response.
12. Atlanta Journal-Constitution — Progress Residential, Pretium agree to $50M settlement — Local reporting on the Georgia filing and the “largest landlord action” description.
13. Consumer Review Fairness Act — 15 U.S.C. § 45b — Federal protection for honest consumer reviews.
14. FTC Act — 15 U.S.C. § 45 — Federal prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices.

Research and authorship: Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, Legal Content Researcher at AllAboutLawyer.com, using the FTC’s November 6 announcement, the original federal complaint, proposed stipulated order, court docket, official state enforcement materials and published news reports.

How we verify: We compare news reports against primary documents (court filings and agency releases) and separate allegations from findings. We update this article when significant court action occurs.

Verification note: The proposed settlement was verified as filed on November 6, 2026. As of November 11, the FTC case was listed as pending and the reviewed docket did not confirm entry of the final order. The FTC had not published consumer refund eligibility rules, a claim form, a claims administrator or a payment schedule. Statutes are summarized for context; state deposit and fee laws change and vary.

Disclaimer: AllAboutLawyer.com is an independent legal-information website, not a law firm. This article provides general legal news and information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The allegations remain disputed, and any future payments depend on judicial approval, the FTC’s refund procedures and individual eligibility. Renters with specific legal questions should consult a licensed attorney.