Most bills that worry landlords change a rent number. This one changes who gets to walk into court, and who pays for it.
The POWER Act, a new New York City Council bill with the backing of the Mamdani administration, would hand consumers and nonprofits a private right of action over “unfair” and “abusive” business practices. Its sponsors keep pointing at one industry when they explain why: real estate.
If you own, manage, finance or insure multifamily in the five boroughs, this is worth ten minutes. I’ll lay out what the bill does, what it would change versus today, who is lining up on each side, and how I’d be thinking about it as an operator. Where it’s my view, I’ll say so.
What the Bill Actually Does
Per TRD, the POWER Act would let consumers and nonprofits bring three kinds of cases alleging unfair or abusive business practices:
- Individual lawsuits
- Class actions
- Cases on behalf of the general public
That third category is the one I’d underline. It means the plaintiff doesn’t have to be the person who was harmed. A nonprofit, or a tenant union, could bring the case.
Here’s the remedy package, as TRD reports it:
| Term | What the bill proposes |
|---|---|
| Who can sue | Consumers and nonprofits |
| Case types | Individual, class action, on behalf of the general public |
| Conduct covered | Unfair and abusive practices, in addition to deceptive ones |
| Damages | Compensatory damages plus $2,500 per violation |
| Legal fees | Businesses that lose must cover the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs |
| Filing window | Within three years of a known violation |
| Scope | All types of business, not just landlords |
| Status | Not yet scheduled for a committee hearing |
Deceptive vs. Unfair vs. Abusive
Today, TRD reports, consumers can only sue corporations over deceptive business practices. That’s a relatively narrow lane. You generally have to show you were misled.
The POWER Act widens the lane in two directions.
First, it adds unfair and abusive conduct as grounds to sue. Second, it defines covered violations broadly: actions that interfere with consumers’ understanding of product or service terms, exploit their lack of understanding of risks, costs or conditions, or otherwise take advantage of consumers’ expectation that a business will act in their interest. Conduct already treated as abusive or unfair under federal consumer protection law is also folded in.
My read: that definition is written in the language of consumer finance, not landlord-tenant law. Applied to a lease, a fee schedule or a security deposit policy, it leaves a lot of room for argument. Room for argument is exactly what a plaintiff’s bar prices.
Why Real Estate Is in the Crosshairs
The bill covers every kind of business. But TRD notes that lawmakers have consistently reached for real estate when offering examples of wrongdoing.
Council member Harvey Epstein, who chairs the consumer and worker protection committee, made the tenant angle explicit when he unveiled the bill on Thursday:
“Think about an apartment building full of tenants. We heard all about this at the Rental Ripoff Hearings, when a landlord thinks they can ignore the law, under the POWER Act tenant unions can seek redress on their own.” — Harvey Epstein, NYC Council
Epstein also framed it as a homeowner tool, citing deed theft, and noted that this kind of right “exists in 43 states and the District of Columbia.” Mayor Zohran Mamdani pitched it as a way to “win back wrongfully withheld security deposits.”
Put those together and the target list is clear:
- Security deposit handling
- Building-wide conditions that a tenant union can organize around
- Fee practices and lease terms tenants say they didn’t understand
- Homeowner-side abuses like deed theft
The Operator’s Math
Here’s why the structure matters more than the headline.
A $2,500 statutory amount sounds small. It isn’t, once you stack it. My own illustration, not TRD’s: if a tenant group alleged one violation per unit in a 100-unit building, that’s $250,000 in per-violation damages before compensatory damages and before the fee award. The bill counts damages “for each violation,” so how a court defines a single violation would drive the real exposure.
Then add fee shifting. When the losing business pays the other side’s lawyers, the economics of bringing a case change completely. Cases that weren’t worth filing become worth filing.
And the three-year window means today’s deposit policy is next year’s evidence.
Who’s Lining Up Where
The business community moved fast.
Steven Fulop, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City, said “New York City’s businesses are not the enemy,” adding the proposal “would make it more expensive to operate, invest, hire, and grow in New York.”
REBNY President Jim Whelan went straight at housing supply: the bill “does nothing to improve affordability,” he said, and “risks discouraging the investment needed to build new housing, maintain existing buildings, and create the jobs that keep New York growing.”
The most important voice may be the quietest. Speaker Julie Menin, who ran the city’s consumer watchdog under Mayor Bill de Blasio, told TRD she sees a need to strengthen city protection laws and has discussed the bill with Epstein and DCWP Chair Samuel Levine. She declined to comment on the tenant union powers or the bill’s details.
My read: a Speaker who supports the goal but won’t endorse the mechanism is a Speaker leaving room to negotiate. Watch the committee hearing for which pieces survive.
The State Context
This doesn’t land in a vacuum. TRD notes that in February the FAIR Business Practices Act gave the New York State Attorney General’s office expanded powers to bring enforcement actions over unfair and abusive conduct.
The POWER Act would let individuals pursue the same category of cases themselves. In other words: the state built the theory, and the city wants to privatize enforcement of it.
What I’d Do Now
The bill hasn’t been scheduled for a hearing, so nothing changes tomorrow. But the prep work is cheap, and it’s the same work that protects you whether or not this passes.
- Audit security deposit returns. It’s the example the mayor chose. Know your timelines and your documentation.
- Read your lease and fee disclosures as a skeptic would. If a term only makes sense to your lawyer, it’s a candidate for an “unfair” claim.
- Map your organized buildings. Where there’s an active tenant union, there’s a ready-made plaintiff under this bill.
- Talk to your carrier. Ask how your policy treats statutory damages and fee awards in consumer claims.
- Track the committee calendar. The hearing is where the definitions get tightened or loosened.
Your Move
The POWER Act is a bet that private litigation can do what city inspectors haven’t. Whether you think that’s overdue or overreach, the operators who read the definitions now will be better positioned than the ones who read them in a complaint.
Send this to whoever runs compliance or asset management in your shop, and let’s compare notes.
My question for you: if this passes as written, what’s the first practice in your portfolio you’d change: deposit handling, fee disclosures, or how you respond to tenant association demands?
