Greystar, the largest owner and manager of apartments in the United States, faces accusations of systematically violating local fair housing laws intended to make housing affordable for low-income tenants. Civil rights complaints filed this week with government agencies in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington DC allege 114 violations of state and District of Columbia fair housing laws.

The complaints claim Greystar refuses to accept federal housing choice vouchers, also known as Section 8 vouchers, in jurisdictions where landlords are legally required to accept them. According to Aaron Carr, executive director of the Housing Rights Initiative, “We have never encountered a landlord that operates with such brazen contempt and hostility toward the rule of law as Greystar. … As the largest landlord in America, Greystar should be setting the standard of best practices for the nation, not systematically rejecting legitimate prospective tenants.”

The Housing Rights Initiative and the national law firm Cohen Milstein submitted the complaints and released recordings of undercover calls to Greystar-managed buildings, showing staff either refused vouchers or imposed unlawful conditions on their use.

Greystar did not address the specific allegations but stated it is “committed to fair housing practices in everything we do” and provides related training to its staff.

As of December, Greystar operated over 1 million housing units nationwide, including approximately 235,000 units in the jurisdictions where the complaints were filed, according to Yardi Matrix data analyzed by the Private Equity Stateholder Project.

These allegations come less than a month after a Guardian investigation revealed that tenants in Greystar-managed buildings face numerous fees from a menu of 125 different add-on charges. In 2025, Greystar settled a federal class action for $50 million over allegations of colluding with other landlords to raise rents and reached a $24 million settlement in a Federal Trade Commission case concerning hidden fees charged to tenants.

Sources