FTC RentGrow settlement raises questions about tenant-screening data

A proposed federal settlement with tenant-screening company RentGrow is putting new attention on the accuracy and transparency of rental background reports. The Federal Trade Commission announced the action July 9, 2026, after the Justice Department filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The FTC alleges that some RentGrow reports duplicated criminal and eviction records, failed to identify all data sources used to match records, mishandled consumer disputes and gave some renters misleading information about whether landlords had been notified after a report was corrected. Those remain allegations in a pending case, not final court findings.

What the FTC and DOJ allege

The FTC describes RentGrow as a consumer reporting agency that compiles information for tenant-screening reports sold to landlords and property managers. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, such companies must use reasonable procedures to achieve maximum possible accuracy and must follow specific rules when consumers request information or dispute errors.

According to the complaint, RentGrow sometimes displayed multiple entries for the same criminal or eviction proceeding. That could make one case appear to be several convictions, charges or eviction actions.

The complaint also alleges that RentGrow did not disclose all information and sources used in some matching processes. The FTC cited additional historical address and middle-name information attributed to LexisNexis Accurint, which RentGrow allegedly used to match criminal and eviction records to consumers.

Another allegation involves dispute handling. The FTC says some disputes, including disputes about duplicate records or later changes to court records, were labeled “invalid” without the additional investigation required under federal law.

The agency further alleges that some consumers were told RentGrow had notified the property manager after successful disputes, while property owners were instead told there had been no change.

What the proposed order would do

The proposed stipulated order would require RentGrow to pay $2.25 million. It would also require reasonable procedures aimed at preventing duplicate records, compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and truthful statements about whether updated screening reports were provided to landlords or property managers.

The FTC authorized the referral and proposed order by a 2-0 vote. The Justice Department filed the complaint and proposed order on behalf of the FTC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under civil action number 1:26-cv-02415.

The case remains pending, according to the FTC case record. The FTC says the proposed order does not have the force of law unless it is approved and signed by a federal judge. The $2.25 million payment should not be treated as a direct compensation fund or a claims process for renters based on the records available.

Why renters should pay attention

A tenant-screening report can affect more than whether an application is approved. Under federal consumer-reporting rules, an adverse action can include a denial, a requirement for a co-signer, a larger deposit or higher rent because of information in the report.

If a landlord takes one of those actions because of information in a screening report, the landlord must provide an adverse-action notice. As the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau explains, the notice must identify the reporting company and explain the applicant’s right to request a free copy of the report within 60 days and dispute inaccurate information. The notice does not necessarily mean the landlord must provide a copy of the underlying report; federal law requires the reporting company’s identifying information and the other disclosures.

A practical checklist after a rental decision

Get the adverse-action notice. Ask for the name, address and phone number of the company that supplied the report. If the landlord did not provide the notice, ask whether the decision was based on a tenant-screening report.
Request the report promptly. Request the free copy from the reporting company within 60 days of the adverse action.
Check for duplicate entries. Look for one eviction or criminal case appearing multiple times because different stages of the same proceeding were listed separately.
Review the outcome. A dismissed eviction, later court ruling, payment or other disposition should not be omitted if it changes the meaning of the record.
Look for sealed, expunged or outdated information. Federal and state rules differ. The CFPB says there is no federal time limit for reporting criminal convictions, while arrests and some civil information have separate limits and state laws may provide additional protections.
Dispute in writing. Send the dispute to both the screening company and the company or court that supplied the incorrect information. Describe the error, include supporting documents and keep copies. The CFPB says a reporting company generally has 30 days to investigate, although some cases can allow 45 days.
Preserve the paper trail. Save the report, notice, dispute, delivery confirmation and responses. Those records may matter if the issue is not corrected.

Renters who cannot get an error corrected can consider filing a complaint with the CFPB, contacting free legal aid or speaking with a lawyer familiar with consumer-reporting and housing law. The CFPB notes that state rules, legal deadlines and available remedies may vary.

What to watch next

The immediate question is whether the federal judge approves and signs the proposed order. The case also keeps broader attention on how tenant-screening companies identify people, disclose their sources and communicate corrections to housing providers.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.