Hettinger v. Bozzuto Management Company, Civil Action No. 2023-3687

Plaintiff, Laura Hettinger, rented an apartment managed by Bozzuto Management Company and alleges Bozzuto failed to adequately disclose required utility fees and a service charge when applying for the apartment.
The dispute revolves around D.C. law requiring landlords to disclose the "applicable rent" (including fees for utilities and services) at the time a prospective tenant applies for a lease.
Bozzuto provided a hardcopy pricing sheet during tours, which mentioned utility charges but did not mention the service fee; online application materials did not disclose these fees.
Hettinger paid the required application fee and later discovered additional utility and service fees in her lease.
Plaintiff brought this as a potential class action, alleging violations of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) and the Rental Housing Act (RHA).
The court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment, specifically on whether Bozzuto’s practices violated disclosure requirements and constituted deceptive or unfair trade practices.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether utility and service charges are “rent” under RHA	Utility/Service fees paid to Bozzuto are statutory “rent”	Such charges are not “rent”; statute does not require utility disclosure	Counts as “rent”; must be disclosed under the RHA
Adequacy of Fee Disclosure at Application Time	Fees were not disclosed at the time of application as required	Disclosure on pricing sheet (pre-app), sufficiency of format	Disclosure inadequate; must occur at exact time of application
Violation of CPPA via RHA Violation	RHA violation also violates CPPA per se	Plaintiff cannot claim per se CPPA violation based on RHA	RHA violation establishes per se CPPA violation
Violation of CPPA - Deceptive/Unfair Practice	"Drip-pricing" misleads reasonable consumers, is unfair	No reasonable consumer misled; disclosure on pricing sheet is adequate	Genuine factual dispute; jury could find for either party, no SJ granted
False Advertising under CPPA	Website/application omitted required fees – not as advertised	“Rent” does not include unlisted fees; pricing sheet cures issue	Factual dispute exists; neither party entitled to SJ on this subcount
Unfairness of Utility-Billing Scheme	Bozzuto’s scheme deprives tenants of rights typical with direct billing	Practice is common; no evidence of unfairness or harm	Genuine factual dispute; cannot grant SJ for defendant

Pearson v. Chung, 961 A.2d 1067 (D.C. 2008) (reasonable consumer standard for misleading practices under CPPA)
Murray v. Goodwin, 791 A.2d 77 (D.C. 2002) (utility payments can be rent if required for occupancy)
Saucier v. Countrywide Home Loans, 64 A.3d 428 (D.C. 2013) (materiality and tendency to mislead under CPPA are issues for the jury)
Earth Island Inst. v. Coca-Cola Co., 321 A.3d 654 (D.C. 2024) (CPPA covers omissions and ambiguities that mislead consumers)
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U.S. 555 (1980) (truth-in-lending aims for meaningful disclosure of terms)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards)