FTC’s RentGrow Settlement Puts Tenant-Screening Data Under Scrutiny
Federal regulators are seeking a proposed $2.25 million settlement with RentGrow over allegations that errors and incomplete disclosures in tenant-screening reports could make it harder for some people to rent homes.
The Justice Department filed the complaint and proposed stipulated order on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission on July 9, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case remains pending, so the proposed order is not yet a final court-approved judgment.
What regulators allege
RentGrow, a consumer reporting agency that sells screening reports to landlords and property managers, allegedly allowed the same criminal or eviction proceeding to appear multiple times in some reports. The FTC said that presentation could give the false impression that an applicant had more convictions or eviction cases than actually existed.
The complaint also alleges that RentGrow did not disclose every source of information used in some reports. In particular, the FTC said consumers who requested source information were not told that Lexis-Nexis Accurint supplied additional historical addresses and middle names for some consumers, even though RentGrow used that information to match criminal and eviction records.
Federal regulators further alleged that some disputes were labeled “invalid” without the additional investigation required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The complaint also says RentGrow told some consumers that corrected results had been sent to property managers, while property owners were instead told that no change had been made.
What the proposed order would require
If approved and signed by the court, the order would require RentGrow to pay $2.25 million and maintain procedures designed to improve the accuracy of its reports. Those requirements would include steps to prevent duplicate records for the same criminal or eviction proceeding and compliance with federal dispute-investigation rules.
The proposed order would also prohibit RentGrow from misrepresenting that it provided updated screening reports to landlords or property managers after a consumer successfully disputed information.
The FTC case file lists the civil action as 1:26-cv-02415 and identifies the matter as pending in the District of Columbia. The FTC says stipulated orders have the force of law only after a federal judge approves and signs them.
What renters can do after an adverse decision
A housing decision based on a tenant-screening report can include more than a denial. Federal consumer guidance says an adverse action may also involve requiring a co-signer, charging a larger deposit or imposing higher rent because of information in the report.
In those situations, the landlord generally must provide an adverse-action notice identifying the screening company’s name, address and phone number. The notice must also explain the renter’s right to request a free copy of the report within 60 days and dispute inaccurate or outdated information.
After receiving the report, renters should check whether a single eviction or criminal proceeding appears more than once, whether a case’s dismissal or final outcome is missing, and whether sealed, expunged, outdated or wrong-person records are included. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also advises checking names, addresses, credit information and amounts shown as owed.
Disputes should be submitted in writing to the screening company and, when appropriate, to the company or court that supplied the information. Renters should keep copies of the adverse-action notice, report, supporting records, dispute and communications. The CFPB accepts complaints about consumer-reporting problems, and legal aid or an attorney may be useful if an error is not corrected or discrimination may also be involved.
Why the broader market matters
The RentGrow case is separate from a 2023 enforcement action involving TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions. In that matter, the CFPB and FTC alleged problems involving eviction-record accuracy and disclosure of third-party sources. The court entered the TransUnion stipulated order on October 18, 2023; it required accuracy and disclosure measures, $11 million in consumer redress and a $4 million penalty.
The next step in the RentGrow matter is whether the District Court for the District of Columbia approves the proposed order. Until then, the allegations remain allegations, and the settlement would not change the Fair Credit Reporting Act itself. It would impose requirements on RentGrow if approved.
Sources
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
