Federal housing policy is shifting in several directions at once. The Federal Trade Commission is considering new rules governing rental fees and price transparency, while the Department of Housing and Urban Development has withdrawn several fair housing guidance documents that property managers have relied on for years.
These developments do not automatically rewrite the laws governing rental housing. An agency request for public comment is not a final regulation, and withdrawing guidance does not repeal the Fair Housing Act.
However, both changes affect the compliance environment. Property management companies should review their practices now instead of waiting for a complaint, enforcement action, or final rule to expose a preventable weakness.
The FTC Is Examining Rental Housing Fees
In March 2026, the FTC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning potentially unfair or deceptive rental housing fee practices. The agency requested information about advertised rent, mandatory charges, application fees, security deposits, billing, and practices that may limit consumer choice. The FTC’s announcement makes clear that it is evaluating whether a federal rule is needed.
This distinction matters. As of August 3, 2026, the FTC’s action remains part of the rulemaking process rather than a final nationwide rental-fee rule.
That does not mean property managers should postpone improving their disclosures. The FTC has already pursued enforcement actions involving rental providers accused of excluding mandatory charges from advertised prices or inadequately explaining fees.
The likely direction is toward greater transparency throughout the rental lifecycle.
Start Improving Fee Disclosures Now
A property management company should be able to show applicants and residents what they will be required to pay, when each charge applies, whether it is refundable, and whether it is mandatory or optional.
A strong disclosure process should address:
The advertised monthly rent.
Every mandatory recurring charge.
One-time fees due before or at move-in.
Application and screening fees.
Utility administration charges.
Pet-related fees and deposits.
Resident benefit or service packages.
Payment-processing charges.
Late, renewal, transfer, and termination fees.
Conditional charges that apply only in defined circumstances.
Mandatory recurring fees should not be buried in a lease attachment or revealed after someone has paid an application fee. Applicants need sufficient information to compare the actual cost of one property with another.
Property managers should also confirm that listings, advertisements, application pages, screening criteria, leases, and employee explanations all describe fees consistently. A well-written disclosure will not protect the company if a leasing employee provides contradictory information.
Transparency Does Not Necessarily Mean Eliminating Fees
The FTC’s current process is focused on whether rental housing fee practices are unfair or deceptive. It is not yet a final prohibition on every ancillary fee.
Property management companies should avoid assuming that all fees will become illegal. They should also avoid assuming that a signed lease automatically cures a misleading advertisement or a late disclosure.
A defensible fee should have:
A clearly stated amount or calculation method.
A defined purpose.
An explanation of whether it is mandatory or optional.
Consistent treatment across similarly situated applicants and residents.
Appropriate disclosure before the consumer commits money.
Language that complies with applicable state and local law.
Companies should review fee structures with qualified counsel because some jurisdictions already impose requirements that are more restrictive than federal law.
HUD Withdrew Several Guidance Documents
In April 2026, HUD published a Federal Register notice withdrawing numerous Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity guidance documents. The withdrawn materials included guidance involving assistance animals, criminal records, digital advertising, limited English proficiency, and other subjects. HUD’s official Federal Register notice identifies the affected documents.
Guidance generally explains an agency’s interpretation or recommended application of existing law. It is not identical to a statute or regulation.
Withdrawing guidance therefore does not mean that housing providers may disregard reasonable accommodation obligations, discriminate in advertising, or abandon consistent screening practices. HUD’s Fair Housing Act overview continues to state that housing discrimination is illegal in nearly all housing.
The practical problem is that property managers now have less federal explanation in several areas where the underlying obligations remain.
Do Not Make Abrupt Fair Housing Changes
A withdrawn document should not be treated as permission to reverse established compliance procedures immediately.
Before changing a policy, property management companies should determine:
Which federal statute or regulation governs the issue.
Whether controlling court decisions still apply.
Whether state or local law creates additional protection.
Whether another agency rule applies.
Whether the company’s attorney recommends retaining the existing procedure.
Whether a vendor’s process needs to be updated.
How the change would affect consistency and documentation.
A company that previously followed a structured process for assistance animal requests may decide, with counsel, that continuing the process remains the most consistent and defensible approach. The fact that HUD withdrew its guidance does not eliminate the Fair Housing Act’s reasonable accommodation requirements.
Assistance Animal Requests Still Require Care
Requests involving service animals and other assistance animals remain a significant compliance area. Property managers should avoid treating them as ordinary pet requests or assuming that a no-pet policy automatically controls the outcome.
Companies need a documented process for:
Recognizing a possible accommodation request.
Routing the request to trained personnel.
Requesting only information permitted under applicable law.
Evaluating the request consistently.
Separating assistance animals from pet fees and pet rules where required.
Documenting the decision and communication.
Protecting disability-related information.
Employees should not improvise answers when an applicant or resident mentions a disability-related need. The request should move through a centralized, legally reviewed process.
Criminal Screening Still Needs Consistency
The withdrawal of HUD guidance concerning criminal records does not make inconsistent or discriminatory screening safe.
Property managers should continue using written criteria that explain which records are considered and how decisions are made. Screening practices should be reviewed for compliance with federal, state, and local requirements, including any restrictions on the timing or use of criminal-history information.
The company should also understand what its screening vendor evaluates. Outsourcing the report or recommendation does not necessarily transfer all responsibility away from the housing provider.
Any contemplated change should be reviewed by fair housing counsel familiar with the company’s jurisdiction.
AI and Digital Advertising Still Create Risk
The withdrawal of federal guidance related to algorithmic systems does not eliminate the need to monitor AI-assisted advertising, lead generation, screening, or communication.
Automated platforms may make choices about:
Which audiences see a housing advertisement.
How leads are prioritized.
Which applicants receive follow-up.
How screening information is evaluated.
Which properties are recommended to particular users.
How resident or applicant questions are answered.
A company may not intend to treat protected groups differently, but an automated process can still produce inconsistent or problematic outcomes. Property managers should preserve human oversight, test systems regularly, and require vendors to explain how their tools use housing-related data.
Changes in agency guidance should lead to better governance, not reduced attention.
State and Local Requirements Remain Critical
Federal policy is only one layer of rental housing compliance. States and municipalities may regulate fees, source of income, criminal screening, application procedures, security deposits, reasonable accommodations, notices, and advertising.
Some jurisdictions also recognize protected classes beyond those expressly listed in federal law.
A federal agency’s decision to withdraw guidance does not override a more protective state or local rule. Multimarket operators should avoid applying one national policy without identifying variations that require different procedures.
A compliance matrix can help the company track:
Each jurisdiction where it operates.
Applicable protected classes.
Fee-disclosure requirements.
Screening restrictions.
Source-of-income protections.
Security-deposit rules.
Accommodation procedures.
Local licensing or registration requirements.
The date each policy was last reviewed.
This information should connect directly to employee training and software workflows.
Build a Regulatory Change Process
Property management companies should not depend on someone noticing a government email and forwarding it to the team. Regulatory monitoring needs a defined owner and implementation process.
That process should include:
Monitoring federal, state, and local developments.
Sending relevant changes to qualified counsel.
Identifying the affected policies, contracts, listings, and workflows.
Assigning responsibility for each update.
Revising templates and software configurations.
Training employees before the effective date.
Auditing implementation after launch.
Preserving prior versions and approval records.
Industry associations can help identify developments, but their updates should supplement legal advice rather than replace it.
Practical Steps Property Managers Can Take Now
Property management companies do not need to predict the exact content of a future FTC rule to improve their position.
They can begin by:
Auditing every applicant and resident fee.
Publishing clear and complete fee information earlier.
Separating mandatory, optional, recurring, and conditional charges.
Confirming that advertisements and leases match.
Reviewing fair housing procedures with counsel.
Avoiding abrupt changes based solely on withdrawn guidance.
Centralizing assistance animal and accommodation requests.
Reviewing criminal-screening practices and vendor responsibilities.
Auditing AI and advertising systems for inconsistent treatment.
Updating the company’s jurisdiction-specific compliance matrix.
Training employees not to interpret policy changes independently.
Establishing a recurring regulatory review.
These steps improve compliance regardless of the eventual political or regulatory outcome.
Less Guidance Does Not Mean Less Responsibility
The current federal environment creates an unusual combination: possible new requirements in some areas and less interpretive guidance in others.
Property management companies should respond with disciplined preparation. Fee transparency can be strengthened before a final FTC rule arrives. Existing fair housing procedures should remain in place until qualified counsel recommends a legally supported change.
The companies most likely to struggle will be those that confuse a proposal with a final rule or a withdrawn guidance document with a repealed law.
Federal housing policy may continue changing quickly. The safest response is a compliance system capable of identifying those changes, evaluating them carefully, and translating them into consistent operations.
This article reflects publicly available information as of August 2026, and provides general business information rather than legal advice. Consult qualified counsel regarding your company’s policies and jurisdictions.
Want more practical insight into housing policy, compliance, and the operational changes affecting property management? Subscribe to PMAssist Insider for actionable strategies and industry analysis delivered directly to your inbox.
