A follow-up to “A $1.7 Million Warning Shot”: New York City’s new self storage rules are on hold in court, and the Canadian Self Storage Association has issued member guidance on drip pricing.
In July, I wrote about New York City’s $1.7 million settlement with Extra Space Storage and the licensing regime the city was building around it. I closed that piece by noting that the Canadian Self Storage Association (CSSA) board was reviewing the settlement and that guidance would follow for members. Two things have happened since. A New York judge has put the city’s new self storage rules on hold, and the CSSA has delivered that guidance. Read together, they say something useful about where regulatory risk actually sits for Canadian owners.
What Happened in New York
On August 25, 2026, the city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) adopted final rules for self storage facilities under its new licensing laws. Operators must keep consumer and master schedules of rates, disclose the maximum occupancy fee a tenant could face over the next 12 months, give at least 60 days’ notice of any rate increase, and collect no fee that is not in the schedule without prior notice. Tenants in default must be able to recover prescription medication and government identification from their unit, retrieved by facility staff, without first paying the balance. Monthly cleanliness certifications round out the package. Some provisions took effect 30 days after publication, with the rest, and the penalties, scheduled for November 1.
During the comment period, the industry argued that the DCWP had exceeded its authority under the licensing laws, that the retrieval rule conflicts with New York’s Lien Law, and that residential-style standards do not belong in self storage. The DCWP softened several provisions but rejected the core objections.
In October, the New York Self Storage Association, the national Self Storage Association and U-Store Self Storage took the city to court. Staten Island Judge Ralph Porzio issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the rules until December 15. The court still has to decide the city’s request to move the case to Manhattan and the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction that would block the rules permanently.
A restraining order is a pause, not a verdict. It preserves the status quo while the court hears the case; it does not find the rules invalid. New York operators now face weeks, possibly months, of uncertainty about which rules they will ultimately have to follow.
Canada Already Has a Rulebook
Here is the contrast Canadian owners should focus on. New York had to build a regulatory scheme for storage from scratch, and because it is new and prescriptive, it can be challenged as overreach. Canada’s main pricing exposure needs no new statute, no licensing regime and no storage-specific rules. It sits in the federal Competition Act, it applies today, and the courts have been upholding it.
That is the subject of the CSSA’s new member guidance, a compliance white paper on drip pricing and price disclosure released to members in October. It is built on an independent legal review the association commissioned of how the industry commonly displays prices, measured against the Competition Act and provincial consumer protection law. The full paper is in the CSSA members’ area. The headline points deserve every owner’s attention, member or not.
The advertised price must be attainable. Under the Competition Act, a price is deemed misleading if a customer cannot actually transact at it because fixed, mandatory charges are added on top. The only carve-out is government-imposed taxes such as GST, HST, PST and QST. Any other fee a customer cannot avoid belongs in the number shown up front.
The penalties are not theoretical. For a corporation, administrative monetary penalties can reach the greater of $10 million ($15 million for repeat conduct) or three times the benefit gained, and up to 3% of annual worldwide revenue where the benefit cannot be calculated. Restitution, corrective notices and private lawsuits are also on the table.
Enforcement is active. The Competition Tribunal ordered Cineplex to pay more than $38.9 million in penalties over an online booking fee left out of its ticket prices, and the Federal Court of Appeal upheld that decision in January 2026. The Competition Bureau has cases underway against Canada’s Wonderland and DoorDash, and SiriusXM agreed to a $3.3 million penalty in 2024. In the Wonderland case, the Bureau has taken the position that even a clearly itemized “price plus fee” display is not enough; the price shown must be all-in.
There is no business-to-business exemption, and the provinces add a layer. Several provinces, with Québec the strictest, require the total price to be displayed with at least as much prominence as any component price.
Where Storage Pricing Gets Exposed
The guidance identifies the practice patterns that carry the most risk in our industry. None will surprise an operator:
- Mandatory fees outside the headline rate: administration fees, insurance or tenant protection charges that are added by default or hard to decline, and lock fees where the customer must buy the operator’s lock.
- Promotions such as “first month free” or “$1 first month” that leave mandatory fees out, are offered only to new customers but shown to everyone, or require a minimum term longer than the promotion without saying so.
- Weekly rates quoted against a monthly minimum or monthly billing, a price no customer can actually rent at.
- An all-in total displayed less prominently than a lower “from” rate or a component price.
The safest posture, according to the guidance, is an upfront total price standard: the first number a customer sees is the all-in cost to rent the unit for the minimum period, with genuinely optional add-ons layered on top.
The Investor Angle
For buyers and lenders, this changes how fee income should be read. Administration fees, mandatory protection plan charges and lock sales are real revenue, and they flow straight to NOI. The diligence question is no longer only whether the income is collected, but how it is disclosed. Fee income that depends on a customer discovering the charge at checkout is lower quality income than the same fee shown in an all-in price. It carries remediation cost and, in the worst case, restitution exposure.
Expect sophisticated buyers to start asking for screenshots of the online rental flow alongside the rent roll, and to ask how promotional rates and fees are displayed. Sellers who clean this up before going to market remove a retrade argument. Owners who move to all-in pricing will show higher headline numbers on their websites, so it is worth measuring conversion before and after the change.
The New York rules remain a useful benchmark even while paused. A 60-day notice period on rate increases and a disclosed 12-month maximum occupancy fee are standards a Canadian province could adopt with little drafting. Underwriting that depends on aggressive existing customer rate increases should be stress tested accordingly.
What Owners Should Do Now
- Map every fee a customer pays from search to signed rental agreement, and flag any mandatory, non-government fee that is not in the headline price.
- Rebuild displayed prices as all-in totals for the minimum rental period, and move optional add-ons to a clearly separate opt-in step.
- Review promotions, weekly rates and page design so the total is the dominant number on the page.
- Get a legal opinion on your own rental flow, particularly insurance opt-out mechanics. The CSSA guidance is education, not legal advice, and neither is this article.
- Document the review. A paper trail supports a good-faith posture if questions come.
Disclosure: I sit on the board of the CSSA, which commissioned the legal review behind this guidance. If you are a member, the full white paper is in the members’ area. If you are not, this is a strong reason to join.
Let’s Talk
If you are preparing to sell, buy or refinance and want to understand how your fee structure and pricing will read to a buyer or lender, I can help. JBW provides confidential Broker’s Opinions of Value, and our transaction audit service (physical site inspection and rent roll verification) gives buyers, sellers and lenders a reconciled picture of the store before a deal closes. Reach me directly at pat@jbwcommercial.com. Conversations are confidential and there is no cost to connect.
Patrick Wood is a commercial real estate broker with JBW Commercial, specializing in the Canadian self storage industry.