The Greystar lawsuit landscape now spans four major fronts: a $24 million Federal Trade Commission and Colorado settlement over hidden rental fees, a Department of Justice antitrust consent decree over algorithmic rent-setting through RealPage software, a $7 million settlement with nine state attorneys general covering the same conduct, and a $50 million share of a nationwide private class action. Two smaller cases — one in California over advertised prices, one in Massachusetts over late fees — are also active. Total exposure across the settled cases exceeds $81 million, but most refund funds have not yet been distributed as of mid-2026.
The FTC Hidden Fees Case and $23 Million Refund Fund
On January 16, 2025, the FTC and the State of Colorado sued Greystar in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging the company had been deceiving renters about the true cost of rent since at least 2019. The complaint said Greystar advertised base rents that left out fixed, mandatory monthly charges for things like trash pickup, package delivery, and technology packages, so the actual monthly cost ran hundreds of dollars higher than the advertised price. Renters often could not discover the real number until after they had handed over personal information, paid a nonrefundable application fee, or put down a holding deposit. In some cases the fees only appeared deep inside lease agreements running 40 to 60 pages, and Greystar reportedly refused to refund application fees or holding deposits when renters walked away.
On December 2, 2025, the parties filed a stipulated final order. Greystar agreed to pay $24 million: $23 million to the FTC, earmarked for consumer refunds, and $1 million to Colorado. As of mid-2026 the case is still listed as pending. The stipulated order requires approval and signature by a federal judge before it takes full legal effect, and the $23 million refund fund has not yet been distributed. If you rented from Greystar and paid application fees, holding deposits, or undisclosed mandatory monthly fees, watch for FTC refund notices — the agency typically contacts eligible consumers directly using records obtained from the defendant.
What Greystar Now Has to Disclose About Rent
The FTC order also imposed permanent changes on how Greystar advertises and discloses pricing. Whenever it advertises a unit, Greystar must clearly and conspicuously display the total monthly lease price, including all mandatory fees. If it shows a base rent or partial price, the full monthly cost must appear more prominently. Before accepting any payment from a prospective renter, the company must disclose the amount and purpose of every fee and state whether each fee is mandatory. If you are shopping a Greystar-managed property today and the listing still shows a base rent that jumps once you get into the application, that is the exact conduct the order forbids.
The DOJ Antitrust Case Over RealPage
The second major front involves algorithmic rent-setting. The DOJ first sued RealPage, a Texas-based revenue management software company, in August 2024, alleging its tools let competing landlords pool sensitive, nonpublic pricing data and receive coordinated rent recommendations. In January 2025 the DOJ expanded the suit to include six major property management companies, Greystar among them, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Greystar was the first landlord defendant to settle. The DOJ announced a proposed consent decree on August 8, 2025, and the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina entered final judgment on March 2, 2026. There is no monetary penalty, but the restrictions are significant. Greystar is barred from using revenue management software that relies on nonpublic competitor data to generate pricing recommendations, and from using products that incorporate rental price floors or limit how far prices can drop. If Greystar cannot certify that its chosen software complies, a court-appointed monitor with broad oversight authority will be installed. The company is also prohibited from sharing competitively sensitive data with rival landlords, from attending RealPage-hosted meetings where competitors discuss pricing, and from coordinating with other landlords on which software to use. Greystar must appoint an antitrust compliance officer and cooperate as a government witness in the ongoing case against RealPage and the remaining defendants. The decree lasts five years. Greystar did not admit wrongdoing.
The Nine-State $7 Million Settlement
In November 2025, a coalition of nine state attorneys general announced a separate $7 million settlement with Greystar over the same RealPage-related conduct. The participating states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, and Tennessee. California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the scheme “algorithmic rent alignment,” and the states also alleged that Greystar executives directly discussed pricing strategies, rent levels, and software parameters with competitors at RealPage-hosted meetings.
The settlement terms largely mirror the DOJ decree: stop using anticompetitive algorithms that incorporate rivals’ data, stop sharing competitively sensitive information with competitors, stay out of RealPage-hosted meetings, and accept a court-appointed monitor if Greystar uses any third-party pricing tool not certified under the consent decree. The agreement includes no admission of wrongdoing. As of mid-2026 the proposed consent judgment had been filed but had not yet been signed by the court. Compliance obligations were set to take effect by April 2026 or 180 days after the judgment’s entry, whichever came first. The $7 million is a payment to the states, not a consumer refund fund.
The $50 Million Private Class Action for Renters
For renters looking for actual money, the case to watch is the private class action, In re RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II), pending before Judge Crenshaw in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege that RealPage and dozens of property management firms conspired to use AI-driven revenue management software to coordinate rents and restrict supply.
On November 21, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval to 26 settlements totaling approximately $141.8 million involving 27 defendants. Greystar is paying the largest share at $50 million. Other settling companies include Simpson Property Group, Avenue5 Residential, Bell Partners, Bozzuto Management, Pinnacle, and Winn. None admitted wrongdoing.
The class period runs from October 18, 2018, through November 21, 2025, and covers anyone who paid rent for an apartment owned or managed by the settling companies during that time. This is nationwide — including Texas renters, who are not covered by the nine-state AG settlement but are covered here if they rented from a settling defendant. As of mid-2026 the claims process has not yet opened. Plaintiffs still need to submit a notice plan and a distribution plan for court approval before renters can begin filing claims. The case is being administered by Angeion Group LLC, with Hausfeld LLP and Robins Kaplan LLP as class counsel. Several defendants remain in the litigation, including Equity Residential and Brookfield Management.
Two More Cases Renters Should Know About
California Honest Pricing Act Class Action
On April 29, 2025, a separate class action, Wu v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Plaintiffs allege Greystar violates California’s Honest Pricing Act by advertising rents that exclude mandatory fees for pest control, trash, and administrative services. One plaintiff reported paying $2,984 in unavoidable fees, and the suit alleges Greystar collected more than $100 million in such fees from tenants in California, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah between August 2019 and August 2022. The case is still in early stages. As of June 2026 the defendants had filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and no class has been certified.
Massachusetts Late Fee Settlement
In Phoebe Flemming v. Greystar Management Services, L.P., filed in the Eastern Housing Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, Greystar agreed to a $3 million settlement to resolve claims that it charged late rent fees before rent was at least 30 days overdue. The class covers current and former Massachusetts renters at Greystar-managed properties dating back to December 2012. No claim form is required. The administrator, Optime Administration LLC, uses Greystar’s records to identify eligible class members and issue automatic pro rata payments. A final fairness hearing was scheduled for December 9, 2025, with the earliest estimated payment date around January 19, 2026. Final approval had not been confirmed as of the most recent available information.
What Renters Should Do Now
If you rented from a Greystar-managed property since October 2018, keep your leases, payment records, and any application fee or holding deposit receipts. The FTC’s $23 million refund fund will require the agency to identify eligible consumers, and the RealPage private class action claims process is expected to open once the notice and distribution plans are approved. Massachusetts renters facing late fee claims from a Greystar property between December 2012 and now should receive automatic payments without filing anything. If you’re currently apartment-hunting at a Greystar-managed building, the FTC order requires the full monthly price, including all mandatory fees, to appear in the advertisement itself — the advertised number should match what you pay.