End Junk Fees for Renters Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10]
- Committees
- Veterans' Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 19, 2025
Bottom line
The "End Junk Fees for Renters Act" aims to increase transparency and reduce financial burdens on tenants in federally connected housing by regulating various rental-related fees and mandating disclosures.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits landlords of federally assisted or federally backed rental units from charging application fees and tenant screening fees. It also caps late fees at less than 3% of monthly rent and mandates a 15-day grace period. Furthermore, it requires landlords to disclose comprehensive information to prospective tenants, including total monthly costs, past litigation, maintenance issues, and historical rent increases. Finally, it directs the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and the Federal Trade Commission to define "junk fees" in rental housing and prohibit their reporting to credit agencies.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill protects vulnerable renters from predatory and opaque fee practices that inflate housing costs, disproportionately affecting low-income individuals and families. They contend that these fees often lack clear justification, create barriers to housing access, and can lead to eviction or debt. The bill promotes fairness, transparency, and affordability in the rental market by eliminating unnecessary financial hurdles for tenants.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill imposes undue regulatory burdens on landlords, potentially increasing their operational costs which could be passed on to tenants through higher base rents or lead to reduced housing supply. They may also contend that application and screening fees are necessary to cover administrative costs and vet potential tenants, and that limiting late fees could disincentivize timely rent payments and complicate property management.
The bill is relatively short, but its detailed definitions of covered units and regulators require careful reading to fully grasp its broad scope and implications.
Section 2(a)
Prohibition on Application Fees
This provision prohibits owners of covered dwelling units from assessing or collecting any fee or charge from a household in connection with the submission of an application for rental of such a unit. This means prospective tenants would no longer pay upfront costs simply to apply for housing, reducing financial barriers to entry.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that eliminating application fees reduces an unnecessary financial barrier for renters, especially those who apply to multiple properties. This promotes equitable access to housing and prevents landlords from profiting from applications that may not result in a lease.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that application fees are legitimate charges that cover the administrative costs associated with processing applications, such as staff time and data entry. Prohibiting these fees could force landlords to absorb these costs or pass them on through higher base rents, ultimately impacting tenants differently.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of reducing upfront costs for tenants against the reality of landlords' administrative expenses. Eliminating these fees may lead to landlords seeking to recover costs elsewhere or becoming more selective in processing applications.
Section 2(b)
Prohibition on Tenant Screening Fees
This provision prohibits owners of covered dwelling units from assessing or collecting any fee or charge for the costs of conducting criminal history checks, tenant screenings, consumer reports, or other background checks. This means landlords would bear the cost of vetting potential tenants, rather than passing it directly to applicants.
Section 2(c)
Limits on Late Fees and Required Disclosures
This provision establishes two key limits on late fees for covered dwelling units: fees must be less than 3% of the monthly rent, and they can only be imposed after 15 days have elapsed since the rent was due. Additionally, landlords are required to disclose these specific requirements in any lease signed after the rules are issued, ensuring transparency for tenants.
Section 2(d)
Mandatory Pre-Lease Disclosures
This provision requires owners of covered dwelling units to disclose several key pieces of information to prospective tenants before a lease is signed. These include the total monthly amount due (including all fees), a summary of any past litigation between the owner and tenants, a description of ongoing pest and maintenance issues, and the rent increase history for the property over the previous 10 years. This aims to provide comprehensive transparency to tenants.
Section 3
CFPB and FTC Rulemaking on 'Junk Fees' and Credit Reporting
This provision directs the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue a rule within 180 days of enactment. This rule must define the term "junk fee" with respect to rental housing and establish that furnishing information about an unpaid junk fee to a consumer reporting agency is an unfair or unconscionable debt collection practice under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This aims to prevent negative credit impacts from fees deemed illegitimate by regulators.
The bill's prohibitions and disclosure requirements apply not only to units receiving direct federal assistance (e.g., HUD programs) but also to any dwelling unit that is "subject to, or is on or in a property that is subject to a Federally backed single-family mortgage loan or a Federally backed multifamily mortgage loan." This includes loans insured or guaranteed by FHA, VA, USDA, or purchased/securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, significantly broadening the bill's reach.
Section 2(e)(2), (3), and (4)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining the scope of a bill's applicability, but its complexity means many might not immediately realize how broadly the bill applies beyond direct public housing or federally subsidized units.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this broad definition is essential to provide comprehensive protection to a significant portion of the rental market, as many private landlords rely on federally backed mortgages. It ensures that the benefits of the bill extend to a wide array of renters.
Case against: Opponents might argue that extending these regulations to privately owned properties simply because of their mortgage financing constitutes an overreach of federal authority into private landlord-tenant relationships, which are traditionally governed by state and local laws.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the number of rental units and landlords subject to these regulations, impacting millions of renters and property owners across the country who might not otherwise be considered part of a 'federal' housing program.
This section defines "appropriate regulator" by assigning enforcement authority for covered dwelling units to different federal agencies based on the type of federal backing or assistance. Specifically, HUD, VA, USDA, and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) are designated as regulators, each with specific jurisdictions tied to their respective housing programs or mortgage backing types.
Section 2(e)(1)
Why it matters:This is a typical legislative method for distributing regulatory authority based on existing agency jurisdictions. However, the intricate breakdown makes the enforcement landscape less straightforward for a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents would argue that assigning regulatory authority to existing agencies with expertise in specific housing programs or mortgage types ensures that enforcement is handled by the most knowledgeable bodies. This leverages existing infrastructure and expertise.
Case against: Opponents might contend that a multi-agency enforcement structure could lead to inconsistencies in interpretation, overlapping jurisdictions, or gaps in oversight. This complexity could create confusion for landlords and tenants trying to understand which rules apply and who to contact for compliance or complaints.
Estimated impact: Establishes a complex, multi-agency regulatory framework that will require significant inter-agency coordination to ensure consistent application and enforcement of the bill's provisions across the diverse range of covered dwelling units.