FTC Settles with Tenant-Screening Company RentGrow Over Alleged FCRA Accuracy Violations

FTC Settles with Tenant-Screening Company RentGrow Over Alleged FCRA Accuracy Violations

The Federal Trade Commission announced a $2.25 million settlement with tenant-screening company RentGrow, Inc. on July 9, 2026, resolving allegations that inaccurate criminal and eviction records, mishandled disputes, and inconsistent consumer disclosures violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Information last verified on July 10, 2026.

Jurisdiction scope: This is a federal matter under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1681 et seq., enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. It applies nationwide to consumer reporting agencies, including tenant-screening companies, regardless of the state where a rental application is filed.

What Happened

The FTC announced on or about July 9, 2026 that it reached a settlement with RentGrow, Inc., a consumer reporting agency that sells tenant-screening background reports to landlords and property managers. Under the proposed order, RentGrow will pay $2.25 million and must change several of its reporting and dispute-handling practices. The order still requires approval from the FTC and a federal court before it becomes final.

The FTC's complaint alleged that RentGrow failed to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of its consumer reports. Specifically, the agency alleged RentGrow's systems could produce duplicate case records, meaning the same criminal or eviction action could appear more than once on a single tenant-screening report. The FTC alleged this made some applicants appear to have more negative history than court records actually reflected.

The complaint also alleged that RentGrow mishandled consumer disputes. According to the FTC, some disputes were labeled "invalid" and closed without further investigation. Separately, the agency alleged RentGrow gave landlords and consumers conflicting accounts of dispute outcomes. In some cases, the FTC alleged, RentGrow told a consumer that the property manager had been notified that a disputed item was modified or deleted, while telling that property manager that no change had occurred.

The FTC further alleged that when consumers requested the sources behind their reports, RentGrow did not disclose that Accurint, a data product from LexisNexis, was one of those sources. None of these allegations have been proven in court; they are allegations that RentGrow has resolved through the proposed settlement rather than through a finding of liability.

What the Law Actually Says

The Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1681 et seq., is the federal statute that governs consumer reporting agencies, including companies that compile tenant-screening reports for landlords. A tenant-screening report is treated as a consumer report under the FCRA whenever it is used, in whole or in part, to help decide whether to rent housing to an applicant.

Section 1681e(b) requires a consumer reporting agency to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" of the information it includes in a consumer report. This is the accuracy standard the FTC's complaint against RentGrow invokes; duplicate entries for a single criminal or eviction case are the kind of error this provision is designed to prevent.

Section 1681i sets out the procedure a consumer reporting agency must follow when a consumer disputes information in a report. It generally requires the agency to reinvestigate disputed items and to correct or delete information that cannot be verified, rather than simply labeling a dispute invalid without further review.

Section 1681g addresses a consumer's right to obtain information about their file, including, in certain circumstances, the sources of the information used to compile a report. Understanding how background-check and consumer-report rules work under these provisions helps explain why the source-disclosure allegation in this case matters alongside the accuracy and dispute allegations.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team. This settlement follows a pattern the FTC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established with their 2023 action against TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, which resulted in a $15 million settlement over similar "maximum possible accuracy" allegations involving rental-screening reports. Together, these two cases signal that federal regulators view duplicate or inflated criminal and eviction history as a recurring, industry-level problem in tenant screening rather than an isolated error at a single company.

The dispute-handling allegations in the RentGrow matter also stand out. If a consumer reporting agency tells a consumer one thing about a corrected record while telling the landlord something different, the practical effect is that the correction may never reach the person making the rental decision. That gap goes to the core purpose of the FCRA's reinvestigation requirements under Section 1681i, which exist so that verified corrections actually flow through to everyone who received the original report.

The Accurint disclosure allegation is narrower but still notable. Consumers who want to understand or challenge a tenant-screening report often need to know which databases fed into it. A gap in source disclosure can make it harder for an applicant to identify where an error originated and to dispute it at the source.

Since the proposed order still needs FTC and court approval, its final terms and effective date are not yet locked in. Recordinglaw.com will track the docket and update this article if the order is approved, modified, or challenged.

How This Affects You

This article describes federal regulatory allegations and a proposed settlement; it does not evaluate any individual's rental application, credit file, or legal claim. In general, the FCRA gives consumers who are the subject of a tenant-screening report certain rights, including the right to dispute inaccurate information with the reporting agency and the right to request information about their file.

Applicants who believe a tenant-screening report contains duplicated or inaccurate criminal or eviction records can generally request a copy of the report and file a dispute with the consumer reporting agency that produced it. Because tenant rights in the rental-application process can also involve state-specific notice and disclosure rules, and because state-level screening requirements can add protections beyond the federal floor, anyone with a specific rental-denial dispute should consider consulting a qualified attorney or a HUD-approved housing counselor rather than relying on general information.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and enforcement actions can change, and the proposed settlement described here is subject to further approval. Consult a qualified attorney for advice about a specific situation.

Related Coverage

• How background-check and consumer-report rules work
• State-level screening requirements (Illinois example)
• Tenant rights in the rental-application process

Last updated: July 10, 2026. This is a developing story; details verified as of July 10, 2026.