The compliance clock is ticking for property managers. What once started as a best practice in rental listings is rapidly becoming a regulatory expectation that demands real action. Fee disclosures that were previously buried in fine print, PDFs, or buried conversations during the leasing process are now in the crosshairs of regulators and lawmakers.

This shift creates a core tension. Many property managers want to comply, yet the systems they depend on were never built to support the level of transparency now required. As the potential for enforcement comes into focus, operators must understand the emerging rules and evaluate whether their technology can help them meet obligations or leave them exposed.

Regulatory Context: What’s Changing and Why It Matters

Federal and state actors have been signaling a tougher stance on so-called “junk fees,” including those tied to rental housing. The Federal Trade Commission has publicly warned software providers that their role in fee disclosures is not optional. In its communications, the agency has made clear that housing software platforms play a central role in how fees are presented to consumers, and that failure to support transparent practices could invite scrutiny.

At the same time, state legislatures are enacting fee transparency mandates with increasing specificity. Requirements vary from one jurisdiction to the next, but there is a common theme throughout: renters must see all mandatory fees up front, and those fees must be consistent wherever a property is marketed.

This regulatory landscape matters because the risk is no longer abstract. Fines and consumer complaints are realistic outcomes for operators who fail to meet evolving standards. What once was a reputational issue has become a compliance issue carrying financial and legal consequences.

What Property Managers Are Actually Required to Do

Across the emerging body of guidance and legislation, several common requirements are taking shape. First, mandatory fees must appear clearly and consistently in listings before a renter engages with a property. This includes administrative fees, amenity fees, move-in charges, and any other cost that a renter must pay to secure a lease.

Second, disclosures must match across all marketing channels. Whether a property appears on an internet listing service, the official property website, or is shared via leasing emails, the fee information must be the same. Surprise add-ons that appear only after a renter has begun the application process are being singled out as especially problematic.

Third, intent is not enough. Property managers who claim they “meant to disclose” fees may still find themselves in trouble if system inconsistencies or manual processes lead to gaps in how information appears. Documentation and system-level consistency are increasingly part of compliance expectations, leaving little room for ambiguity.

Where ambiguity still exists in legislation, the safest path is proactive clarity and conservative compliance. Property managers have an opportunity now to build business practices that exceed minimal legal thresholds, rather than waiting for enforcement to define the boundaries.

Where Compliance Breaks Down: Process vs. Platform

Many compliance gaps are systemic, rooted not in willful non-compliance but in fractured workflows. In a typical leasing environment, fees may be stored in multiple systems and updated manually across listings. Each of these vectors introduces risk.

When fees are entered separately into a property management system, a marketing platform, or an external listing service, discrepancies can easily arise. A minor change in one system may not propagate to others, creating inconsistent disclosures that attract regulatory attention. Manual updates across channels increase the potential for human error, particularly in portfolios with high turnover or frequent fee adjustments.

Leasing teams that improvise disclosures in emails or PDFs can inadvertently violate transparency expectations simply because the guidance is not enforced uniformly within their software workflows. In other words, the problem is often not that property teams want to hide fees, but that their tools make consistent transparency harder to achieve.

Regulators recognize this reality. The FTC’s warnings to rental software providers emphasize that technology workflows matter. Software firms are being asked to build features that support transparent practices instead of leaving compliance to manual workarounds. This demonstrates how the software a property manager chooses can influence whether compliance feels achievable or perpetually out of reach.

Why Software Choice is Now a Compliance Decision

The new legislation underscores the need for agile property management platforms that proactively make updates to keep up with the changing regulatory environment. The right systems should offer:

• Audit trails and reporting give operators a documented history of how fees were presented, which can be invaluable during an inquiry or investigation.
• Integration capabilities that allow for changes that are made in one system to be reflected in other systems connected to it.

In this context, software becomes part of a property manager’s compliance infrastructure. Choosing a platform that supports centralized fee controls and automated disclosures reduces operational friction and minimizes reliance on error-prone processes. It also gives operators the confidence that their listings meet regulatory expectations before legal risk appears.

This link between technology and compliance underscores the urgency of evaluating software stacks not just for feature sets, but for their ability to support transparent business practices. A proactive approach today may prevent costly remediation efforts tomorrow.

The Implications for Proactive vs. Reactive Operators

Operators who are auditing fee structures and reassessing their software stacks now are positioning themselves as proactive leaders at a time when enforcement is tightening. Those who wait for enforcement actions to define their next steps may find themselves reacting to problems rather than preventing them.

The downstream effects of reactive compliance can extend beyond fines or investigations. Investor scrutiny may increase for portfolios with compliance gaps. Consumers may lose trust when additional costs surface late in the leasing process. Platforms and software providers themselves face liability when their tools are implicated in non-compliant disclosures.
Proactive operators can use transparent practices as a trust signal. Clear, consistent fee information reduces friction in the leasing funnel and improves the renter experience.

Transparency as a Competitive and Defensive Advantage

Legislation at the state level and signals from federal agencies point toward a future where clear, consistent fee disclosures are baseline expectations rather than aspirational best practices. In a market where renters increasingly compare total costs across listings, transparency can become a competitive advantage as well as a defensive necessity.

Property managers should take immediate steps to review fee structures, audit how fees are disclosed across marketing channels, and reassess whether their current software stack supports realistic compliance. A conservative, proactive approach to transparency not only reduces legal risk but can enhance renter trust and operational clarity.

The clock is ticking, and the cost of inaction may be higher than operators expect. Embracing transparent disclosures and technology that enables them is increasingly central to responsible property management.