For as long as most New Yorkers have rented an apartment, the math never made sense: the landlord hired the broker to fill the unit, and the tenant wrote the broker's check, often for a full month's rent or more, just to get the keys. New York City's FARE Act, Local Law 119 of 2024, ended that arrangement on June 11, 2025. The rule is simple to state and was not simple to pass: whoever hires the broker pays the broker. If a broker is working for the landlord, marketing the landlord's unit, or simply the one who posted the listing you responded to, that broker is the landlord's agent under the Act regardless of what any paperwork says afterward, and the landlord's agent cannot collect a fee from you, the tenant. If you paid it anyway after the effective date, the Act gives you a claim to get that money back.
The disclosure requirement is what makes relabeling the fee a losing move. The Act requires landlords to disclose, in writing, every fee a tenant will be asked to pay in connection with a rental before the tenant is bound to pay it. That requirement exists because the predictable next move for a landlord's agent who can no longer call a charge a "broker fee" is to call it something else: a "move-in fee," an "administrative fee," a "technology fee," or a "listing fee" that happens to equal what the broker fee used to be. A charge that functions as payment to the landlord's agent for finding or showing you the apartment is the fee the Act prohibits, whatever label sits on the invoice. Our attorney demand letter for this claim, the FARE Act broker fee refund letter, is built to name that relabeling directly rather than let the wording do the work the statute doesn't allow.
Enforcement runs on two tracks, and an honest guide describes both. The NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection accepts FARE Act complaints for free, investigates them, and can pursue violations under its own authority: that channel costs a tenant nothing, and every tenant charged an unlawful fee should know it exists. Separately, the Act gives the tenant a private right of action, meaning you are not required to wait on a city investigation to pursue your own refund. That second track is where a demand letter fits: an attorney-signed demand citing the Act's fee prohibition, disclosure requirement, and private right of action, sent directly to whoever is holding your money, with a deadline. Many tenants sensibly use both tracks at once: a DCWP complaint creates a regulatory record while the demand pursues the money directly.
Timing is the threshold question the Act turns on, and it deserves more care than it usually gets. The Act reaches fees charged after its June 11, 2025 effective date. That is not the same question as when your lease was signed. A lease executed before June 11 but a fee demanded or paid afterward can still fall inside the Act's coverage; the operative date is when the charge was imposed and paid, not when the tenancy began. Because that line decides whether the claim exists at all, the single most useful thing to preserve is dated proof: the listing itself (screenshot it before it disappears), the fee invoice or the text or email demanding it, and a bank or payment record showing when you actually paid. A broker fee paid in cash "to hold the apartment" is not weaker evidence if you have a receipt, a text confirming the amount, or a withdrawal that matches the number: the intake for the letter is built to work with whichever of those you have.
One argument brokers raise deserves a direct answer: "I represented you, not the landlord." Under the Act, a broker who published or marketed a landlord's listing is treated as the landlord's agent regardless of what the broker claims after the fact once a fee dispute starts. The listing itself, showing who posted it and on whose behalf the unit was marketed, is usually the evidence that answers the question, and it is exactly the kind of record the letter attaches. A broker genuinely and separately hired by the tenant, in writing, before the search began, sits outside the Act's prohibition: that arrangement is legal and always has been: which is why the intake asks specifically who reached out to whom first.
None of this requires a lawsuit to start. The Act's private right of action exists in case the demand doesn't work, not as the first move. If DCWP's free complaint process or an attorney demand letter doesn't resolve the fee, small claims court hears these disputes for a modest filing fee, and our small claims filing kit and small claims vs. demand letter guide cover that next step. Most of these claims resolve well before that, because the paper trail: the listing, the invoice, the payment, and now the statute: tends to leave the party holding your money with very little to argue.
Likely yes: the Act turns on when the fee was charged and paid, not when the lease was signed. Save the invoice or demand and your payment record showing the date; that timeline is the core of the claim.
Not to the Act. A required charge that functions as payment for the landlord's agent finding or showing you the apartment is the prohibited fee regardless of its label, and the demand letter says so directly.
Yes, and you should know that option exists: NYC's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection takes FARE Act complaints for free and can investigate. The demand letter is a separate, direct route to your specific refund, and many tenants use both.
Under the Act, a broker who posted or marketed the landlord's listing is the landlord's agent, whatever they claim once the dispute starts. The listing itself is usually the evidence that settles the question.
No. Texts, emails referencing the amount, a bank withdrawal matching the figure, or the listing and lease timeline can all support the claim; the intake is built to work with whatever documentation you actually have.