Boston Rents Rise Modestly After Broker-Fee Ban, Defying New York’s Spike

Boston’s Broker-Fee Ban at One Year: The Data So Far

One year ago, Massachusetts banned apartment landlords from passing brokerage commissions on to tenants when the landlord hired the agent. The policy, which took effect in August 2025, was meant to ease tenants’ upfront costs. Critics warned it could push up rents, as landlords baked the fee into monthly charges. But so far, Boston’s rental market has not mirrored the dramatic spike seen in New York City after its own broker-fee law, the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses (FARE) Act, kicked in.

According to Zillow, the average Boston rent stood at $3,450 as of early August, up 2.9 percent year over year—only slightly above the 2.2 percent national increase for a typical apartment. That is a far cry from New York, where median rent skyrocketed 8.2 percent in the year after the FARE Act was adopted. The contrast has surprised some industry veterans. “I haven’t seen landlords raise because of the broker fee ban, which I was actually surprised. I thought it would end up getting factored into the rent,” said Daniel Amodeo, president of Amo Realty, which operates in both cities.

Boston’s rental landscape was already shifting before the ban. The share of listings requiring tenants to pay commissions had been falling for months, dropping from a typical range of 70–90 percent in early 2025 to just 20–40 percent by August of that year. Landlords appeared to anticipate the change and began absorbing the cost ahead of the law.

Importantly, broader forces cooled the market. An analysis by Boston Pads found the availability rate—units vacant now plus those about to become vacant—had nearly doubled year over year in both Boston and Greater Boston. A drop in international students, linked to federal immigration policy changes, ate into demand. Demetrios Salpoglou of Boston Pads said the broker-fee law “probably wasn’t even needed in 2026” given the jump in inventory.

Why Boston’s Rental Market Stayed Cool While New York’s Overheated

The inventory factor that Boston had but New York lacked

Boston’s rental supply swelled just as the ban arrived, largely due to a decline in foreign students—a key renter cohort. The availability rate nearly doubling softened any upward pressure from the fee ban. In New York, by contrast, rental inventory shrank each month after the FARE Act’s adoption, according to The Real Deal’s analysis, creating the conditions for faster rent growth. The different supply dynamics go a long way toward explaining the two cities’ divergent outcomes.

Landlords already knew the ban was coming

Market data show that Boston landlords began absorbing broker fees months before the law took effect. The share of listings requiring tenant-paid commissions plummeted well ahead of the mandate, suggesting that owners saw the regulatory direction early and adjusted their pricing and listing strategies. That gradual transition muted any sudden rent shock. In essence, the fee cost had already been blended into the market by the time the ban became enforceable.

The brokerage model’s pain in New York

While Boston tenants avoided a sharp price spike, the brokerage industry—especially in New York—felt the sting. “The FARE Act was like the nail in the coffin for a lot of the agents that focused on rentals in New York,” said Amodeo. Luxury buildings have increasingly opted to forgo hiring brokers altogether, and tenants can now more easily find apartments through listings platforms. The shift has made it harder for agents to rely on rental commissions as a sole business line, accelerating a pre-existing trend away from traditional broker-dependent leasing.

Why Boston tenants haven’t felt a rent shock

For Boston renters, the benign rent trend is a function not of the law’s success but of a cooling market. With vacancy up, landlords have less power to pass costs through. The 2.9 percent rise is roughly in line with national norms, meaning tenants are paying slightly more but haven’t been hit with the double-digit spikes seen during the post-pandemic crunch. The upfront cost of moving, however, has fallen for many because they no longer pay a broker fee, fulfilling the law’s primary goal.

What Tenants, Landlords and Brokers Should Watch Next

• For Boston tenants: Market conditions remain tenant-friendly for now thanks to high availability. If you’re renewing or searching, you’re likely to see only modest rent increases. But keep an eye on the start of the academic year—a return of international students could quickly tighten supply.
• For Boston landlords: Absorbing broker fees hasn’t yet forced dramatic rent hikes, but don’t count on inventory staying high. As student numbers recover, pricing power may return. Factor the ongoing broker cost into your financials, but recognize that pushing rents too high could backfire in a still-competitive market.
• For New York renters: The FARE Act hasn’t brought relief—median rents are up 8.2%. Expect continued competition and high costs. If you’re moving, plan for a market where broker fees may still appear in some segments unless your landlord absorbs them.
• For brokers in both markets: The rental-only agent model is under heavy pressure. Expand into buyer/seller representation, property management, or advisory services. The rise of listing platforms is not a temporary trend—it’s reshaping how tenants find homes and who gets paid for the introduction.
• For policymakers: The Boston vs. New York comparison shows that fee-transfer rules alone don’t determine rent trajectories. Supply conditions, student flows, and landlord pre-emption matter enormously. Any future tenant-protection measures should be assessed alongside the local supply-demand balance to avoid unintended rent spikes.