Back Office BeatSubscribe

Published by J9 Systems. What's new in business tech, and what it means for yours.

From the brief of Monday, November 9, 2026 · No. 23

From the daily brief · Policy

FTC's $49.75M Progress Residential settlement targets hidden fees and review gag clauses

The case involves a landlord, but the same two practices regulators punished here, prices that leave out mandatory fees and no-bad-review clauses, appear in plenty of trade quotes and service agreements.

By Carter Josephson · · 2 min read

What happened

Progress Residential, which manages over 90,000 single-family rental homes, and its owner Pretium Partners will pay $49.75 million to settle charges from the FTC and Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and Utah that they advertised false rental prices, charged hidden fees, improperly withheld security deposits and used nondisparagement clauses in form contracts. The proposed order, announced Nov. 6, 2026, requires Progress to advertise a "true total monthly rental price" that includes all mandatory recurring fees more prominently than any other price, and bars standardized nondisparagement clauses.

What it means for a 10-to-50-person business

The order binds only Progress and Pretium. It still shows how the FTC and four state attorneys general define deceptive pricing: if a fee is mandatory, it belongs in the advertised price. Example: a 14-person plumbing company advertises "Drain cleaning from $89" on its website and Google profile. Every job also carries a mandatory $49 trip charge and a $15 "service admin" fee that customers first see on the invoice. The customer was shown $89 and pays $153, and 42% of the bill was never shown up front. That is the same pattern the FTC called deceptive in this case. The second risk is a service agreement that forbids negative reviews. The FTC alleged these clauses are unlawful, and federal law has generally voided them in consumer form contracts since 2016. Owners who sell to homeowners and advertise prices should care, especially in Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and Utah, whose attorneys general joined this case. Firms that bill only businesses, or that quote every job custom with all fees on the quote, can ignore it.

What to do
Try it

Spend one hour this month comparing every advertised price on your website, ads, Google profile and quote templates against a real invoice, and either fold mandatory fees into the advertised number or show them right next to it, and delete any no-negative-review language from your service agreement.

What it costs
What it costs
Owner review of website, ads, quote and invoice templates
1 hr (≈ $75 at $75/hr, assumed)
Web or template edits to show all-in prices
1–2 hrs (≈ $100–$200 at $100/hr, assumed)
Removing a no-negative-review clause from service agreement
30 min (≈ $40)
Doing nothing
$0 now; exposure if a customer complaint reaches a state attorney general or the FTC, which says it is monitoring pricing transparency
Sources
ftc.gov (primary)

Questions owners ask

I'm not a landlord. Does this order apply to my business?

No. The order binds only Progress and Pretium. It shows which practices the FTC and four state attorneys general treat as deceptive, and those practices are not limited to housing.

Can I still charge a trip fee or service fee?

The case does not ban fees. It targets advertising a price that leaves out fees the customer must pay. Show the all-in price, or put the mandatory fee clearly next to the advertised price.

Are clauses that forbid customers from posting bad reviews legal?

The FTC alleged they were unlawful here. The federal Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 generally voids them in consumer form contracts. Remove them.

Three to five of these, every weekday morning.

Related