For most American families, rent is the single-largest bill they pay each month. Before signing a lease, renters need to understand not just the base rent, but the full cost of living in a home. That clarity matters more than ever as housing costs continue to rise and household budgets are stretched thin. Technology can now provide that information, and operators agree it’s the right direction for rental housing.
The good news is that the tools to provide clear, upfront pricing already exist, and rental housing providers are working quickly to deploy them. At the Real Estate Technology and Transformation Center (RETTC), we see transparency as a practical way to strengthen trust in the rental market while supporting affordability. Done right, it helps renters make informed decisions without driving up costs or reducing choice.
Transparency is not a new concept for housing providers. For years, the industry has invested in technology and systems that make pricing information easier to share and easier to understand. One of the most important tools supporting this progress is the Multifamily Information and Transactions Standards, better known as MITS. MITS establishes a common technical framework or shared “language” that allows rental housing systems to communicate consistently across platforms. In practical terms, its latest update helps ensure that rent and fees appear accurately, and the same way, wherever renters search.
Many housing providers and technology partners have already adopted MITS 5.0 because they recognize that transparency and affordability go hand in hand. These industry-led efforts demonstrate that meaningful transparency can be achieved without rigid, one-size-fits-all regulation. In fact, the continued push for MITS 5.0 adoption couldn’t come at a more critical time.
In early December, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state of Colorado reached a settlement with Greystar over fee disclosure. The FTC chair’s position is that fee transparency in housing is no longer optional, it is required:
“… The deceptive prices excluded several fixed, mandatory monthly fees, instead of the total monthly price that people would have to pay, in violation of the FTC Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act,” noted the FTC’s press release in early December.
Under the circumstances, RETTC strongly encourages rental housing providers to continue their work here and be sure to review the statements made by the FTC and the Attorney General of Colorado on rental housing fee transparency.
As part of RETTC’s ongoing effort to draw attention to the growing interest by federal, state, and local regulators in rental housing fees, visit
rettc.org/resources/fee-transparency to find a timely new resource guide for RETTC members.
Despite the industry-led progress to date, some policymakers at the state and local levels are proposing new regulations to mandate rental fee transparency. While well intentioned, these proposals often assume that additional regulation can deliver transparency at no cost to renters. In reality, housing operations are complex, and new regulatory requirements rarely come without trade-offs.
Legislating and regulating fee transparency injects complexity and confusion into routine operations, slows down leasing, and diverts resources away from technology upgrades and resident-facing service improvements. Whether a regulation focuses on presentation or prohibition, the end result is often the same: higher costs that ultimately fall on renters.
Parking provides a clear example. Some regulations would require housing providers to advertise a single “total rent” that includes parking, even though a renter may not own a car. Many providers charge separately for parking so that renters who do not need it can save money. For car-free households, this means lower housing costs. Requiring parking fees to be bundled into advertised rent forces providers to overstate prices for many renters and reduces, rather than improves, price transparency.
Similarly, proposals that ban parking fees altogether would require housing providers to roll the cost of parking facilities into base rents. That approach raises rents for everyone, including renters who do not use parking, and forces non-drivers to subsidize car owners. This outcome undermines both affordability and equity.
Pet fees illustrate the same dynamic. Data consistently show that pet-owning households often generate higher average property damage than households without pets. Pet fees and refundable pet deposits allow housing providers to ensure that only pet owners bear these additional costs. Banning pet fees does not eliminate the cost of pet-related damage. It simply shifts those costs into base rent, forcing renters without pets to subsidize those who have them.
Poorly designed, contradictory, and fragmented regulations across jurisdictions can also interfere with legitimate business practices and overlook rising and uncontrollable expenses facing housing providers today, including insurance premiums, property taxes, regulatory compliance costs, and increasing rental fraud. Ignoring these realities does not lower costs. It redistributes them in ways that ultimately harm renters.
A more effective path forward builds on what is already working. Policymakers can support technology-driven models like MITS, partner with housing providers, and avoid duplicative or conflicting rules that undermine accuracy and choice. This approach strengthens transparency without sacrificing affordability or housing supply. RETTC stands ready to work with policymakers to ensure transparency efforts truly serve renters and help address our housing affordability challenges.