Fair Housing, ADA and Fee Violation Fines for Apartment Operators: The 2026 Multifamily Penalty and Settlement Table
For executives, asset managers and compliance leads at multifamily operators sizing their exposure.
Federal ceilings for 2026 are unchanged from 2025: a HUD administrative law judge can impose $26,262 for a first Fair Housing Act violation and $131,308 with two priors, and DOJ can seek $118,225 for a first ADA Title III violation. Refunds cost more: Invitation Homes paid $48 million and Greystar $24 million in FTC fee settlements.
- HUD's 24 CFR 180.671 amounts took effect July 14, 2025, and HUD made no adjustment for 2026.
- ADA Title III civil penalties are available only in DOJ actions; private website suits seek injunctions and attorney's fees.
- The FTC's $53,088 per-violation penalty needs a knowing violation of a trade regulation rule or of a litigated order, and no rental fee rule exists yet.
- The two largest rental fee cases were settled with refunds of fee income, so exposure scales with leases and months, not a per-violation cap.
- Brynson found nearly 89% of communities described themselves differently across listing sites, even though 97% of listings had been updated within the previous 90 days, so most portfolios carry some exposure.
This guide is general information, not legal advice. Laws and regulator guidance change; check the current rules for your properties with your counsel before acting.
Federal penalty maximums for apartment operators in 2026
Each figure below comes from the regulation or agency notice that sets it, and each row says who can seek it, which decides whether the number applies to the letter on your desk.
| Regime and who seeks it | First violation | With priors or subsequent | In force since | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fair Housing Act, HUD administrative case before an ALJ (42 U.S.C. 3612(g)(3)) | $26,262 | $65,653 with one prior within 5 years; $131,308 with two or more within 7 years | July 14, 2025; held for 2026 | 24 CFR 180.671, 90 FR, June 12, 2025; HUD 2026 notice |
| Fair Housing Act, DOJ pattern-or-practice suit (42 U.S.C. 3614(d)(1)(C)) | $131,308 | $262,614 subsequent | Penalties assessed after July 3, 2025 | 28 CFR 85.5, Table 1 |
| ADA Title III, DOJ civil action (42 U.S.C. 12188(b)(2)(C)) | $118,225 | $236,451 subsequent | Penalties assessed after July 3, 2025 | 28 CFR 85.5, Table 1 |
| FTC Act Sections 5(m)(1)(A) and 5(m)(1)(B), FTC civil penalty action | $53,088 per violation | Same; each day of a continuing rule violation counts separately (15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(C)) | January 17, 2025; unchanged for 2026 | FTC, February 2025; FTC 2026 notice |
These are ceilings, not tariffs. A court or judge sets the amount within them, and the ADA statute tells the court to weigh "any good faith effort or attempt to comply" (42 U.S.C. 12188(b)(5)). The penalty is also only one line of the bill: the fair housing statutes let the government or the renter recover damages, and the fee cases below were resolved with refunds, not penalties.
Why the fines you have seen online are out of date
Pages that rank for fair housing and ADA fines still quote amounts such as $23,011 for a first HUD violation or $75,000 for a first ADA Title III violation. Neither matches the current regulation. The statutes still print their original amounts, and agencies publish an inflation-adjusted figure each year, so any number without a date and a citation is probably several adjustments behind.
| Penalty | Amount written in the statute | Adjusted amount in force for 2026 | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| HUD ALJ, no prior violation | $10,000 | $26,262 | 42 U.S.C. 3612(g)(3); 24 CFR 180.671 |
| HUD ALJ, two or more priors in 7 years | $50,000 | $131,308 | 42 U.S.C. 3612(g)(3); 24 CFR 180.671 |
| DOJ Fair Housing Act, first violation | $50,000 | $131,308 | 42 U.S.C. 3614(d)(1)(C); 28 CFR 85.5 |
| DOJ ADA Title III, first violation | $50,000 | $118,225 (was $115,231 for penalties assessed after February 12, 2024) | 42 U.S.C. 12188(b)(2)(C); 28 CFR 85.5 |
| FTC Act 5(m)(1)(A) and (B) | $10,000 | $53,088 (was $51,744 before January 17, 2025) | 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1); FTC, February 2025 |
There was no 2026 increase. HUD's notice of September 24, 2026 says adjustments "are not being made for 2026" and that all HUD civil money penalties stay at their 2025 level, because the October 2025 consumer price data the formula needs was not produced during the government shutdown (HUD, 2026-19600). The FTC said the same on September 15, 2026: its amounts "will remain unchanged during 2026" (FTC, 2026-18853). Both notices rest on OMB Memorandum M-26-11 of April 17, 2026, which told agencies to keep using their 2025 penalty levels, so the DOJ amounts in 28 CFR 85.5 also stand.
When a board deck or vendor pitch quotes a fine without a CFR section and effective date, use Table 1.
Rental fee enforcement: what the two largest cases cost
The biggest numbers in rental compliance are not penalties. They are consumer redress: fee income handed back. The two largest federal rental fee cases were settled for refunds under the FTC Act, with Colorado joining the Greystar case.
| Case | Money | What was alleged | Outcome and order terms | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FTC v. Invitation Homes (stipulated order entered September 27, 2024) | $48 million for consumer refunds | Deceiving renters about lease costs, charging undisclosed fees, failing to inspect homes before move-in, unfairly withholding security deposits; the FTC's March 2026 release summarizes it as, among other things, "excluding mandatory monthly fees from the advertised rent" | More than $47.2 million sent to consumers in March 2026; the stipulated order is on the case page | FTC case page; FTC, March 2026 |
| FTC and Colorado v. Greystar (announced December 2, 2025) | $24 million: $23 million to the FTC for refunds, $1 million to Colorado | Misleading renters about monthly rent by "tacking on hidden fees on top of advertised prices" | "Clearly and conspicuously display total monthly leasing prices and mandatory fees", and disclose the total more prominently wherever base rent or partial pricing is advertised, and detail all fees before taking any payment. Full detail in our FTC rental fee guide | FTC release |
In both cases the money went to refunds, so fee exposure scales with how many leases paid the fee and for how long, not with a per-violation ceiling. Fee income at risk is the first number leadership should see.
When the FTC's $53,088 figure applies to a rental operator
Section 5(m)(1)(A) lets the FTC seek penalties against anyone who violates an FTC trade regulation rule "with actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied" that the conduct is prohibited by that rule. Section 5(m)(1)(B) reaches conduct the Commission has already found unfair or deceptive in a litigated, final cease and desist order (consent orders do not count), done with actual knowledge (15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)).
- No rental fee rule exists yet. The FTC's fees rule, 16 CFR part 464, defines a covered good or service as live-event tickets and short-term lodging (16 CFR 464.1). A long-term apartment lease is not in it.
- A rental rule is being considered. The FTC announced an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on rental housing fees on March 12, 2026 (docket FTC-2026-0266); no proposed rule had followed in the Federal Register as of October 22, 2026, and said a rule "would allow the agency to seek civil penalties against violators and more easily obtain redress for harmed consumers" (FTC release). Status and docket detail live in our FTC rental fee guide.
- Without a rule, the penalty route is narrow. An operator that has broken no trade regulation rule, and is not knowingly repeating conduct already condemned in a litigated order, is facing redress and conduct terms, not civil penalties. Both rental fee cases in Table 2 were resolved with redress. If a final rental rule issues, the arithmetic changes: per-violation penalties, with each day of a continuing violation counted separately.
Accessibility: DOJ penalties versus private lawsuits
The $118,225 ADA figure is real, but only the Attorney General can ask for it. In a DOJ action under Title III the court may also award "monetary damages to persons aggrieved when requested by the Attorney General" (42 U.S.C. 12188(b)(2)).
A private plaintiff suing under Title III gets the remedies of 42 U.S.C. 2000a-3(a): preventive relief such as an injunction (42 U.S.C. 2000a-3(a)), and the ADA separately lets the court award the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee, litigation expenses and costs (42 U.S.C. 12205). There is no federal damages or penalty provision in that path. The real cost of a private website claim is your remediation, both sides' legal fees and any settlement, which is why the demand letter, not the DOJ fine, is the number to plan for. Our ADA demand letter guide covers filing data and settlement patterns. State-law damages claims can add to this; they are outside this table.
8 costs of non-compliance that are not on the penalty table
Civil penalties are the headline. These are the lines that usually cost more, each tied to the statute or case that creates it.
- 01
- 02
Actual and punitive damages to renters
A private Fair Housing Act suit can recover "actual and punitive damages" with no statutory cap (42 U.S.C. 3613(c)(1)). An ALJ in a HUD case can award actual damages on top of the Table 1 penalty (42 U.S.C. 3612(g)(3)).
- 03
The other side's attorney's fees
The prevailing party can recover a reasonable attorney's fee under both the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3613(c)(2)) and the ADA (42 U.S.C. 12205). A private Title III website claim carries no federal damages, so the plaintiff's fees and your own remediation make up most of the bill.
- 04
Damages sought by the government
In DOJ pattern-or-practice fair housing cases and Title III cases, the court can award "monetary damages to persons aggrieved" in addition to the penalty (3614(d)(1)(B), 12188(b)(2)(B)). One finding across a portfolio can mean many aggrieved renters.
- 05
A higher ceiling next time
HUD's tiers rise with prior adjudications: one prior discriminatory housing practice adjudged within 5 years lifts the maximum from $26,262 to $65,653, two or more within 7 years to $131,308 (24 CFR 180.671; 42 U.S.C. 3612(g)(3)). An adjudicated finding on one property raises the ceiling for the same ad template running at another.
- 06
Conduct orders that rebuild your pricing display
The Greystar order requires the total monthly leasing price to be disclosed more prominently wherever base rent or partial pricing is advertised, and all fees detailed before any payment (FTC release). For an operator under a similar order, that touches every surface that shows price: the website, floor plan cards, ILS feeds and the application flow.
- 07
Leads lost to listings that disagree
With conflicting fees, amenities and terms persisting in Brynson's data even though 97% of listings had been updated within the previous 90 days (report), the cost that never reaches a regulator is a renter who sees two prices and leaves. It shows up as lower conversion on the ILS you pay for, not as a fine. See the ILS listing audit.
- 08
Tools that did not do what they claimed
The FTC's $1 million accessiBe order turned on a claim that a plug-in could make any site meet WCAG (FTC release). The vendor paid the FTC; the operator still owns the inaccessible page, the remediation and any demand letter. See accessibility overlays on apartment websites.
Why exposure is the default, not the exception
Across 6,000 properties and 1.6 million units analysed, nearly 89% of communities described themselves differently across listing sites, and although 97% of listings had been updated within the previous 90 days, conflicting mandatory fees, missing amenities and contradictory terms persisted (the listing accuracy report). Brynson powers 1 in 20 U.S. apartment communities, and these are ordinary operator listings, not a sample of known bad actors.
A fee that is right on the website and missing on an ILS is still a total-price problem on that ILS, and recently updated listings are not safer: the update usually fixed one surface and not the others.
A simple exposure model you can run on your own portfolio
Board members ask "what is our exposure?" The honest answer is a ranked list, not a single figure. Compliance360 ranks every alert by units at stake Ă— enforcement intensity Ă— severity Ă— age. You can approximate the same logic in a spreadsheet.
| Factor | What to measure | Why it moves the number |
|---|---|---|
| Units at stake | Leases signed at each property while the issue was live | Redress in fee cases scales with leases that paid the fee |
| Enforcement intensity | Federal plus the state and city rules at that address | A fee shown outside the headline rent is a bigger risk where a state total-price law also applies; see state rental fee laws |
| Severity | Type of finding: a protected-class phrase, a missing mandatory fee, a blocked application step, a stale amenity | Fair housing and fee findings map to Table 1 and Table 2; a stale amenity is mainly a lead-quality cost |
| Age | Days since the issue first appeared, from archived captures | Older issues touch more leases and weaken a good-faith argument |
A 30-property operator charges a $25 monthly amenity fee that is missing from the advertised rent on two ILSs at 8 properties. Those properties sign 1,200 leases a year, and the gap has been live for 9 months, so about 900 leases saw an understated price. If a regulator sought a full year of that fee back, the redress figure is 900 Ă— $25 Ă— 12 = $270,000, before legal fees and before the time it takes to rework every listing. The same fee missing at one property for two weeks touches about 6 leases (150 a year Ă— 2/52). Same finding, very different exposure, which is why units and age sit in the ranking next to severity.
Keep the evidence while you measure: the age column depends on knowing what a page said and when. Compliance evidence retention covers what to capture and how long to keep it.
How to estimate your compliance exposure in a day
A first-pass exposure estimate for a board or asset-management review, using the model above.
Time needed: 8 hours
- 1
List every surface per property
For each property, list the website pages that show price, each ILS listing, active ads and the application flow. An unwatched surface goes on the list as unknown, not as clean.
- 2
Record the rules at each address
Note the federal baseline and any state or city fee, fair housing and source-of-income rules for each property. This sets the enforcement intensity column.
- 3
Log findings by type
Classify each issue as fair housing language, a missing or understated mandatory fee, an accessibility failure in a key page or the application, or listing drift.
- 4
Date each finding
Use archived captures or listing history to find when each issue first appeared. Without a date you cannot size it or show good faith.
- 5
Size it in leases and dollars
Multiply leases signed during the issue's life by the fee involved for fee findings, and map fair housing and accessibility findings to the Table 1 ceilings and the cost lines above.
- 6
Rank and assign owners
Sort by units at stake, enforcement intensity, severity and age, then give the top five an owner and a re-check date. Report the ranked list, not a single total.
Compliance360 turns this model into a daily ranked list. Fee Transparency checks advertised versus total price nightly and puts fee income at risk in front of leadership, Fair Housing resolves protected classes per property, Web Accessibility scans key pages and the application flow against WCAG 2.1 AA, and Listing Consistency catches ILS drift from the PMS. Alerts are ranked by units at stake Ă— enforcement intensity Ă— severity Ă— age, SiteArchiver supplies the dated captures, and monthly reports show what was watched and what was not. It reduces exposure; it does not replace counsel.
Frequently asked questions
In a HUD administrative case the maximum is $26,262 for a respondent with no prior violation, $65,653 with one prior in 5 years and $131,308 with two or more in 7 years, under 24 CFR 180.671 effective July 14, 2025. HUD made no adjustment for 2026. In a DOJ pattern-or-practice suit the ceilings are $131,308 for a first violation and $262,614 for a subsequent one.
Under 28 CFR 85.5, a civil penalty assessed after July 3, 2025 in a DOJ Title III action can reach $118,225 for a first violation and $236,451 for a subsequent one. The court must consider good-faith efforts to comply. Private plaintiffs cannot recover these penalties.
Those pages quote older figures. The statutes print base amounts and agencies adjust them for inflation each year, so an undated number goes stale quickly. Use the CFR section and its effective date: 24 CFR 180.671 for HUD and 28 CFR 85.5 for DOJ.
Not as a first case with no rule behind it. FTC civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation need a knowing violation of a trade regulation rule, or knowing repetition of conduct condemned in a litigated order, and the current fees rule covers only live-event tickets and short-term lodging. Today the FTC obtains refunds, as it did from Invitation Homes and Greystar; a final rental fee rule would add penalties.
Under 42 U.S.C. 3613(a)(1)(A), a private civil action must be filed within 2 years after the discriminatory housing practice occurred or ended. An issue that was live for months therefore stays challengeable for 2 years after it was fixed, which is one reason to keep dated records of what your listings and website said.
It can. 42 U.S.C. 12188(b)(5) tells the court, when it decides what civil penalty is appropriate, to consider any good-faith effort or attempt to comply. A dated record of scanning, fixing and re-checking key pages and the application flow is the practical evidence of that effort.
How we checked this
Written by the Brynson Research Team and checked against the primary sources below. Each source shows the date we last read it. We update this page when the rules change; see the change log.
- Inflation Catch-Up Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts (24 CFR 180.671), 2025, HUD, Federal Register 2025-10519, 2025-06-12. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts for 2026, HUD, Federal Register 2026-19600, 2026-09-24. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- 28 CFR 85.5, Adjustments to penalties, Legal Information Institute (eCFR text). Accessed 2026-10-22.
- FTC Publishes Inflation-Adjusted Civil Penalty Amounts for 2025, Federal Trade Commission, 2025-02-11. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustments (2026), FTC, Federal Register 2026-18853, 2026-09-15. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- 42 U.S.C. 3612, Enforcement by Secretary, Legal Information Institute. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- 42 U.S.C. 3613, Enforcement by private persons, Legal Information Institute. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- 42 U.S.C. 3614, Enforcement by the Attorney General, Legal Information Institute. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- 42 U.S.C. 12188, Enforcement (ADA Title III), Legal Information Institute. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- 42 U.S.C. 2000a-3, Civil actions for injunctive relief, Legal Information Institute. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- 42 U.S.C. 12205, Attorney's fees (ADA), Legal Information Institute. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- 15 U.S.C. 45, Unfair methods of competition unlawful, Legal Information Institute. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- 16 CFR 464.1, Definitions (Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees), Legal Information Institute. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- FTC v. Invitation Homes Inc., Federal Trade Commission, 2024-09-27. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- Greystar Agrees to Pay $24 Million to Stop Deceptive Advertising Practices, Federal Trade Commission, 2025-12-02. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- FTC Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Unfair or Deceptive Rental Housing Fees, Federal Trade Commission, 2026-03-12. Accessed 2026-10-22.
- FTC Approves Final Order Requiring accessiBe to Pay $1 Million, Federal Trade Commission, 2025-04-22. Accessed 2026-10-22.
Change log
- First published.
This guide is general information, not legal advice. Laws and regulator guidance change; check the current rules for your properties with your counsel before acting.