The bill prohibits owners of "covered dwelling units" from charging application fees or tenant‑screening/background‑check fees, limits late rent penalties to under 3% of monthly rent and only after 15 days past due, and requires landlords to provide several disclosures before a lease is signed—total monthly cost including fees, a practicable summary of past litigation with tenants, ongoing pest/maintenance issues, and ten years of rent increase history.
Coverage turns on federal involvement: units that receive HUD assistance or that sit on properties subject to federally backed single‑family or multifamily mortgage loans (FHA, VA, USDA, or loans purchased/securitized by Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac). The bill also directs the CFPB and FTC to define "junk fee" for rental housing and to deem furnishing unpaid junk fee information to consumer reporting agencies an unfair or unconscionable debt‑collection practice under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs designated federal regulators to prohibit application fees and tenant‑screening fees for covered dwelling units, caps late fees at less than 3% of monthly rent and only after a 15‑day delay, and mandates pre‑lease disclosures about costs, litigation, maintenance, and rent history. It also tasks the CFPB and FTC with defining "junk fee" for rentals and treating reporting unpaid junk fees to credit bureaus as an unfair debt‑collection practice.
Who It Affects
The rules apply to owners of units that are HUD‑assisted or subject to federally backed mortgage loans (including loans insured or guaranteed by FHA, VA, USDA, or purchased/securitized by Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac). They will also touch tenant‑screening vendors, consumer reporting agencies, servicers, and property managers who process fees or furnish credit data.
Why It Matters
This bill imports federal oversight into fee practices long governed by state landlord‑tenant law, removes common revenue lines for landlords operating on federally tied financing, and could curtail a route to credit reporting for small unpaid charges—altering tenant screening economics and the interaction between housing finance programs and rental operations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The End Junk Fees for Renters Act attacks the common up‑front and ancillary charges renters face when applying for or occupying a unit. Rather than leave those charges to state law, the bill draws a federal perimeter: units that are HUD‑assisted or sit on properties with federally backed mortgages fall under a federal ban on application fees and screening/background‑check fees.
Landlords of those covered units must also limit late fees to below 3% of monthly rent and cannot assess late penalties until 15 days after rent is due.
The bill sets substantive consumer‑facing obligations as well. Before a tenant signs a lease, the landlord must disclose the total monthly amount owed (including fees), a practicable summary of prior litigation with current or former tenants, any ongoing pest or maintenance problems, and the property’s rent increase history for the previous ten years.
Those disclosure items are designed to put key information into tenant hands at lease formation, though the statute phrases some items as "to the degree practicable," which gives regulators latitude in implementation.On enforcement and rulemaking, the bill divides responsibilities. For covered units the ‘‘appropriate regulator’’—HUD, VA, USDA, or the FHFA, depending on how the property or loan is federally connected—must effectuate the prohibitions and disclosure obligations.
Separately, the CFPB and FTC must, within 180 days, define what counts as a rental "junk fee" and issue a finding that supplying information about unpaid junk fees to consumer reporting agencies is an unfair or unconscionable means of collecting debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. That CFPB/FTC action targets the credit‑reporting pathway for small fee debts rather than only the fee practices themselves.Taken together, the measures both remove specific fee lines and block a common enforcement lever—reporting unpaid small fees to credit bureaus.
That combination changes incentives: landlords and their vendors lose revenue and a collection tool, tenants gain transparency and restraint on charges, and regulators must coordinate a patchwork of compliance and enforcement across housing finance programs and credit‑reporting systems.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill expressly prohibits charging any application fee for rental of a covered dwelling unit.
Owners may not charge applicants or tenants for criminal history, tenant‑screening, consumer‑report, or other background checks for covered units.
Late fees are limited to less than 3% of the tenant’s monthly rent and may be charged only after 15 days past the rent due date; leases must disclose those limits once implementing rules are issued.
Before signing a lease landlords must disclose total monthly payments (including fees), a practicable summary of prior litigation with tenants, ongoing pest/maintenance issues, and the property’s rent increases for the past ten years.
The CFPB and FTC must, within 180 days, define “junk fee” for rental housing and find that furnishing information about unpaid junk fees to consumer reporting agencies is an unfair or unconscionable debt‑collection practice under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name, the "End Junk Fees for Renters Act." This is a standard caption but signals the sponsor’s framing: the measure targets practices described as "junk fees" rather than attempting a comprehensive reform of landlord‑tenant law.
Ban on application fees for covered units
This subsection directs the appropriate regulator to prohibit owners of covered dwelling units from assessing or collecting any fee tied to a rental application. Practically, that removes a common up‑front revenue item for landlords whose properties fall within the federal coverage definitions; regulators will have to determine how the prohibition applies to agency fees passed through by property managers or third‑party platforms.
Ban on charging for criminal/credit/background checks
The statute bars charging households for criminal history checks, consumer reports, or any background screening when applying for covered rentals. That shifts the cost of tenant vetting onto owners or their vendors and implicates relationships with tenant‑screening firms and consumer reporting agencies that traditionally bill applicants.
Caps and timing for late rent penalties
The bill requires regulators to limit late charges to under 3% of monthly rent and only permit them after 15 days have passed since rent due. It also obliges disclosure of those limits in leases executed on or after the issuing of implementing rules. This creates a uniform federal standard for penalty sizing and grace periods for covered units, replacing any higher state caps or different timing rules for federally connected properties.
Mandatory tenant disclosures before lease signing
Owners must provide, before a lease is signed, the total monthly amount due including fees, a practicable summary of past litigation with current or former tenants, ongoing pest/maintenance issues, and the property’s rent increases for the preceding ten years. The "to the degree practicable" qualifier will be pivotal in rulemaking: regulators must balance disclosure usefulness against record availability, privacy, and administrative burden for owners.
Definitions of covered units and federal rulemaking duties
Section 2(e) defines "covered dwelling unit" broadly to include HUD‑assisted units and properties tied to federally backed single‑family or multifamily mortgages (FHA, VA, USDA, and loans purchased or securitized by Fannie/Freddie). Section 3 assigns the CFPB and FTC the task of defining "junk fee" for rentals and requires them to deem reporting unpaid junk fees to consumer reporting agencies an unfair or unconscionable collection practice under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act—triggering a separate enforcement lever focused on credit reporting rather than just fee bans.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Renters applying to covered units — they no longer face application or screening fees and gain mandatory pre‑lease information that helps compare offers and uncover maintenance or litigation red flags.
- Low‑income and credit‑vulnerable tenants — limiting credit‑reporting of small unpaid "junk fees" reduces the risk that minor unpaid charges will harm credit records and access to future housing or credit.
- Tenants in HUD‑assisted or federally financed housing — these residents receive federal protections independent of state fee rules and greater consistency across programs.
- Tenant advocacy and legal aid organizations — clearer federal standards and disclosure requirements create better leverage for enforcement actions and assistance to clients.
- Consumers of lease information — prospective tenants get a standardized data set (total monthly cost, maintenance issues, litigation summary, 10‑year rent changes) that increases market transparency.
Who Bears the Cost
- Owners with federally backed mortgages and HUD‑assisted properties — they lose application and screening fee revenue and must absorb vetting costs or change screening practices, potentially increasing operating costs.
- Small landlords who rely on FHA/VA/USDA financing — fewer revenue options and new disclosure duties will create compliance costs and administrative burdens that hit small operators harder than large firms.
- Tenant‑screening firms and third‑party background‑check vendors — the ban on billing applicants forces business model changes or pushes vendors to contractually shift costs to owners.
- Property managers and servicers — they must update leases, intake procedures, and reporting practices, and navigate multiple agency regulators (HUD, VA, USDA, FHFA, CFPB, FTC) during implementation.
- Consumer reporting agencies and collection vendors — the CFPB/FTC finding discouraging reporting of unpaid small fees could reduce furnishers’ data flows and collections-based revenue.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits renter protections and transparency against landlords’ need to underwrite screening and cover default or administrative costs: restricting fees and credit reporting helps tenants and reduces the harms of small charge‑driven credit hits, but it forces owners (especially small, federally financed landlords) to bear screening and collection costs or raise rents—leaving regulators to choose which economic losers and winners the policy will produce.
The bill centralizes fee limits and disclosure requirements at the federal level but leaves implementation and enforcement to multiple agencies: HUD, VA, USDA, FHFA (as "appropriate regulators" for covered units) and the CFPB/FTC for the credit‑reporting finding. That fragmentation creates coordination and timing risks—owners with mixed portfolios will face different regulators for different properties and uneven guidance on compliance.
The statutory phrase "to the degree practicable" for litigation summaries and operational disclosures gives regulators wide discretion, but also invites disputes about what landlords must reasonably produce and how to verify disclosure accuracy.
The CFPB/FTC directive targets the credit‑reporting pathway by labeling furnishing unpaid junk fee data to consumer reporting agencies as an unfair or unconscionable debt‑collection practice. How that finding intersects with the FDCPA and with furnishers versus debt collectors is uncertain; FDCPA obligations traditionally apply to third‑party debt collectors, not all furnishers.
The rulemaking could therefore require careful legal framing to reach furnishers or to rely on separate statutory authorities. Finally, eliminating these fees risks shifting costs into rents or other charges where not specifically barred, or accelerating consolidation as small owners find compliance and lost revenue unsustainable—outcomes the bill does not directly address.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.