RES RENTAL FEE FAIRNESS ACT
SB1964 creates the Rental Fee Transparency and Fairness Act, a new Illinois law aimed at limiting and standardizing fees charged in residential rentals. The bill generally bars landlords, landlord’s agents, and certain brokers or salespersons from imposing or collecting tenant fees related to the rental of residential property unless specifically allowed by the Act. It also prohibits conditioning a rental on a tenant hiring an agent, and requires that all tenant-paid fees be disclosed on the first page of the lease with a short description. Any fee not properly disclosed would not be enforceable against the tenant.
The bill also restricts several common lease charges. It caps late fees at $25 and prohibits late fees if rent is paid within seven days of the due date, while allowing longer grace periods. It bans lease clauses charging administrative renewal fees, lease modification fees, fees for contacting the owner or property manager, eviction notice or eviction action fees, and pet occupancy fees for the duration of the lease. In addition, it limits one-time fees to move-in fees, move-out fees, and security deposits, sets caps on those charges, and allows tenants to pay certain one-time fees in installments under specified circumstances.
SB1964 would significantly affect Illinois landlord-tenant law by regulating how rental costs are disclosed and by narrowing the types and amounts of fees that can be imposed in residential leases entered into after the effective date. It also makes violations an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, allowing civil actions for compensatory, injunctive, and declaratory relief. The bill expressly preempts home rule, meaning local governments could not adopt conflicting rules in this area.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available context does not show formal debate or legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text and title, the measure appears to be framed as a tenant-protection and fee-transparency proposal, suggesting support from renter advocates and likely concern from landlords, property managers, and real estate industry participants who would face tighter limits on fee structures and disclosures.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the fee restrictions, the cap on late fees and one-time charges, the installment-payment requirements, and the private right of action under consumer fraud law. Landlords and brokers may argue the bill reduces flexibility to recover administrative and operational costs, while tenant advocates would likely view it as a safeguard against hidden or excessive rental fees and surprise charges.
The bill would add a new chapter of state law governing residential rental fees, disclosures, and lease terms, and it would apply prospectively to leases entered into after the effective date. It would also amend the practical operation of landlord-tenant relationships by invalidating undisclosed fees, limiting certain charges, and making violations enforceable under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. By preempting home rule, it would override local ordinances that conflict with its fee rules.
No votes or committee testimony are provided, so there is no direct record of legislative sentiment in the supplied materials. The bill’s structure and title indicate a pro-tenant, consumer-protection approach focused on transparency and fairness in rental pricing. On that basis, the likely support base is tenant advocates and consumer groups, while opposition would likely come from landlords, property managers, brokers, and real estate industry groups affected by the fee limits and disclosure mandates.
The most likely areas of dispute are the prohibition on many common rental fees, the $25 cap on late fees, the limits on security deposits and move-in/move-out fees, and the requirement that tenants be allowed to pay certain one-time fees in installments. Another likely point of contention is the ban on requiring tenants to engage an agent and the presumption that a listing agent acts with landlord authorization. Industry stakeholders may argue these provisions interfere with business practices and cost recovery, while supporters would argue they prevent hidden charges and abusive fee stacking.