Dominique A. Pineiro/DoD via Getty Images
- A Maryland judge ruled against Jared Kushner's apartment company on Thursday.
- The company made "widespread and numerous" violations of consumer protection laws, the judge said.
- The ruling is the result of a 2019 lawsuit against Kushner's company for exploiting tenants.
- See more stories on Insider's business page.
An apartment company owned by Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of former President Donald Trump and an ex-White House adviser, violated Maryland consumer protection laws, a judge ruled Thursday.
The 252-page decision, first reported oby the Baltimore Sun, says JK2 and Westminster Management violated tenants' rights by collecting debts without proper licenses, charging them improper fees, and misleading them about the physical condition of rental units.
Maryland's Democratic Attorney General Brian Fosh sued Kushner's company in 2019 for allegedly exploiting tenants.
Administrative Law Judge Emily Daneker did not agree with all of Fosh's allegations and noted they did not take place for as long of a time period as the suit claimed, but still found "widespread and numerous" instances of consumer protection laws being broken.
Kushner Cos., which owns JK2 and Westminster Management, painted the decision as a vindication.
"Kushner respects the thoughtful depth of the Judge's decision, which vindicates Westminster with respect to many of the Attorney General's overreaching allegations," the company's general counsel, Christopher Smith, wrote in a statement.
While the Kushner camp had long accused Fosh of acting out of political motivations, the judge did not agree.
"The evidence does not establish differential treatment or selective enforcement based on any politically motivated basis, as opposed to motivation to protect Maryland consumers," she wrote.
Daneker also found the Kushner company overcharged tenants thousands of times. While Maryland state law caps application processing fees from landlords at $25, tenants looking to rent at Kushner properties were hit with fees ranging from $35 to $50. This happened to at least 15,289 applicants, according to the ruling.
"These circumstances do not support a finding that this was the result of isolated or inadvertent mistakes," the judge wrote.