Undercover testers recorded voucher refusals at every building contacted
The complaints, filed with government agencies in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia and Washington, D.C., accuse Greystar of violating state and local fair housing laws that require landlords to accept federal Housing Choice Vouchers, commonly known as Section 8. Federal law makes participation in the voucher program voluntary, but numerous states and cities have passed laws requiring landlords to accept them.
The Housing Rights Initiative, a watchdog group, and the law firm Cohen Milstein submitted the complaints and publicly released recordings of calls made by undercover testers who posed as prospective tenants with vouchers. According to the group, Greystar staff at every building either refused to accept the vouchers or imposed unlawful conditions on their use.
“We have never encountered a landlord that operates with such brazen contempt and hostility toward the rule of law as Greystar,” Aaron Carr, executive director of the Housing Rights Initiative, said in a statement. “As the largest landlord in America, Greystar should be setting the standard of best practices for the nation, not systematically rejecting legitimate prospective tenants.”
In a statement, Greystar did not address the specifics of the complaints but said it is “committed to fair housing practices in everything we do” and provides related training to staff.
As of December, the company operated more than 1 million housing units in the United States, including roughly 235,000 in the jurisdictions where the complaints were filed, according to Yardi Matrix data analyzed by the Private Equity Stakeholder Project.
The allegations come less than a month after a Guardian investigation reported that tenants in Greystar-run buildings face a menu of 125 different add-on fees. Lawsuits currently seeking class-action status in multiple states allege Greystar charges inflated or illegal fees.
In 2025, Greystar agreed to a $50 million settlement to resolve a federal class action alleging it colluded with other landlords to raise rents, and reached a $24 million settlement in a Federal Trade Commission case alleging it gouged tenants with hidden fees. The company did not admit wrongdoing in connection with those settlements and has said that the claims in the pending class actions are implausible and factually deficient.