Massachusetts’s new provision, set to take effect in 2026, will similarly require landlords to cover broker fees—often as high as one month’s rent—rather than passing them to tenants. That mirrors New York City’s FARE Act, which took effect on June 11, 2025 and barred landlords and their agents from charging broker fees to renters—unless the renter explicitly hires a broker
But in New York City, landlords swiftly responded. In the very first week after FARE’s implementation, average advertised rents surged from about $4,750 to $5,500—a 15 percent increase—as landlords absorbed fee costs into rent. That’s before accounting for additional rent‑inflating tactics. Reports soon emerged of hidden “management” or “technology” fees—upwards of $4,200—that appear crafted to mimic banned broker charges.
Such reaction is hardly surprising. Analysts warned ahead of time that a flat ban on broker fees would likely manifest as higher overall rents—exactly the long‑term pain that tenants would bear. And indeed, signs of market strain followed. Inventory visibly shrank: listings dropped by roughly 12 percent from May to June, and anecdotal reports pointed to 2,000 listings vanishing overnight—suggesting landlords were retreating listings to maintain leverage or skirt regulations.
The aggregate outcome is familiar: more expensive, less transparent markets, exacting steeper tolls on renters. These developments demonstrate a simple truth: shifting payment obligations does not reduce housing costs—it merely changes forms.
A deeper policy approach must address the root causes of high housing prices. Restrictive zoning, cumbersome permitting processes, and exclusionary land-use policies choke supply. High construction costs, tight financing, and labor shortages compound the problem. Mandating who pays which fee may redistribute burdens, but unless more housing is built and market efficiency improved, rents will climb regardless.
If Massachusetts follows New York’s lead without pursuing supply‑oriented reforms, tenants will likely face the same mounting costs. Instead, municipalities should pair consumer‑friendly tenant protections with pro‑housing reforms: streamlined permitting, increased density near transit, and upzoning where appropriate. That approach tackles scarcity, not simply whose pocket is tapped.
In municipal policymaking, shifting burdens without reducing them is a zero‑sum game. It’s time cities stop rearranging deck chairs and start enlarging the vessel.
