Pull to refresh
Logo
What Changed
Following Why Sign Up
NYC enforcement records show broker fee workarounds persist after ban

NYC enforcement records show broker fee workarounds persist after ban

Rule Changes New York, NY local

The FARE Act banned tenant-paid broker fees in June 2025. City records show 91 summonses as brokers try renamed fees, conditioning, and off-market listings.

Today: City Reporter publishes broker fee violation records

Overview

Updated 1 hour ago

New York City banned tenant-paid broker fees in June 2025. Sixteen months later, enforcement records show some brokers still collect them, under names like "management fees" and "finders fees."

The records are the city's first detailed look at how the FARE Act is being enforced. Whether the ban holds depends on whether the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection can police the workarounds, and whether the real estate industry's legal challenge continues.

Why it matters

If broker fee workarounds persist, New York renters still pay thousands that the FARE Act was supposed to eliminate.

Monday: what changed in New York, NY

One short email a week with the openings, closings, permits and council votes we covered. Free. Unsubscribe in one click.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

2,500+
Complaints filed with DCWP since law took effect
New Yorkers filed more than 2,500 broker fee-related complaints and queries from June 2025 through mid-October 2026.
91
Summonses issued by DCWP
Issued between June 2025 and April 2026, alleging 130 separate violations of the FARE Act.
$60,000
Penalties levied
Resulted from 55 of the 130 alleged violations; brokers also paid back more than $24,000 to tenants.
$24,000+
Fees refunded to tenants
DCWP secured these repayments alongside the penalties.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Log in Sign Up

People Involved

SL
Sam Levine
Commissioner, NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection
Oversees FARE Act enforcement
 Chi Ossé
Chi Ossé
Brooklyn City Council Member, FARE Act sponsor
Principal sponsor of the law
JW
James Whelan
President, Real Estate Board of New York
Leading industry opposition to FARE Act
AJ
Aleia Jacobs
Tenant in Hell's Kitchen
Charged a $1,000 lease amendment fee, fought it

Organizations Involved

Department of Consumer and Worker Protection
Department of Consumer and Worker Protection
City Agency
Enforces the FARE Act

The city agency that issues summonses and penalties for FARE Act violations.
Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings
Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings
Administrative Tribunal
Adjudicates FARE Act violation cases

The city's central administrative court that hears FARE Act cases against brokers and landlords.
Real Estate Board of New York
Real Estate Board of New York
Trade Association
Leading legal challenge against FARE Act

The real estate industry group that sued to block the FARE Act.
New York City Council
New York City Council
Legislative Body
Passed the FARE Act

The city's legislative body, which passed the FARE Act by a 42-to-8 veto-proof vote.

Timeline

December 2024 October 2026

6 events Latest: Today
Tap a bar to jump to that date

  1. City Reporter publishes broker fee violation records

    Today Investigation

    FOIL'd DCWP documents show 91 summonses alleging renamed fees, conditioning, and other workarounds.

  2. Second Circuit upholds FARE Act

    Legal

    Three-judge panel affirms dismissal, rejects First Amendment challenge.

  3. Coney Realty misses hearing, default entered

    Legal

    Company misses OATH hearing over alleged lease amendment fee; default violation entered.

  4. FARE Act takes effect

    Policy

    Brokers listing rentals with landlord permission can no longer charge tenants fees.

  5. Judge dismisses landlord challenge

    Legal

    Judge Ronnie Abrams rejects the suit and denies a preliminary injunction.

  6. Landlords sue to block FARE Act

    Legal

    Real estate groups file federal lawsuit challenging the as-yet-uneffective fee ban.

Scenarios

1

Supreme Court declines to hear FARE Act challenge

Possible Resolves by Jan 31, 2028

Discussed by: REBNY president James Whelan and real estate trade press

REBNY has said it will explore further legal options after losing at the Second Circuit. The next step is a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court accepts about 1% of petitions, so denial is the likelier path, but the industry has deep pockets and a history of long legal fights.

2

NYC ramps up enforcement as DCWP adds landlord-tenant staff

Possible Resolves by End of 2027

Discussed by: DCWP Commissioner Sam Levine in The City Reporter

Levine says the agency hired staff dedicated to landlord-tenant issues for the first time and is actively monitoring StreetEasy and other platforms. If that push works, the next enforcement report should show rising summonses and penalties. The risk: most of the 2,500-plus complaints lack enough detail to act on.

3

NYC Council votes to close broker-fee loopholes

Unlikely Resolves by End of 2027

Discussed by: Tenant advocates and The City Reporter's coverage of renamed fees

The enforcement records document "management fees," "finders fees," and lease amendment charges that the current FARE Act text doesn't clearly cover. Sponsor Chi Ossé could introduce amendments to explicitly ban these. The Council's original 42-to-8 vote shows a veto-proof majority exists, but the Council would need to act.

Historical Context

2 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

June 2017

EU roaming charge ban (2017)

The European Union abolished mobile roaming surcharges across member states, ending a fee travelers had paid for decades. The ban applied to calls, texts, and data and was hugely popular with consumers.

Then

Telecom operators introduced "fair use" caps and some raised domestic plan prices to offset lost revenue. The European Commission issued repeated clarifications about what counted as legitimate limits.

Now

The ban largely held, but operators kept testing its edges. Regulators spent years issuing guidance — a reminder that fee bans require ongoing enforcement.

Why this matters now

Like the FARE Act, the EU ban ended a long-standing fee consumers had come to accept. Its history shows the enforcement burden that follows such a ban.

January 2014

CFPB prepayment penalty ban (2014)

The Dodd-Frank Act barred prepayment penalties on most U.S. residential mortgages. Before that, lenders routinely charged borrowers up to 2% of the remaining balance for paying off a loan early.

Then

Lenders stopped charging the penalty on covered loans. Some shifted costs to other fees or higher rates, but the specific practice largely disappeared within a few years.

Now

The ban is now accepted as industry standard. It showed that a fee ban can succeed when regulators actively police it.

Why this matters now

The FARE Act is attempting the same shift for broker fees. Its success depends on whether DCWP enforces aggressively enough to make the ban stick.

Sources

(4)
The City Reporter Courthouse News Service NYC.gov Defalco Realty