FTC Settles with Tenant-Screening Company RentGrow Over Alleged FCRA Accuracy Violations
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited July 10, 2026). How we verify our legal content
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the FTC announce about RentGrow?
On July 9, 2026, the FTC announced a proposed settlement requiring tenant-screening company RentGrow, Inc. to pay $2.25 million and change its practices, resolving FTC allegations of Fair Credit Reporting Act and FTC Act violations.
What did the FTC allege RentGrow did wrong?
The FTC alleged RentGrow failed to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy, allowing duplicate criminal and eviction case entries on reports, mishandled consumer disputes by sometimes labeling them invalid without further review, gave landlords and consumers different information about dispute outcomes, and did not disclose Accurint as a data source.
Is the RentGrow settlement final?
No. The proposed order requires approval from the FTC and a federal court before it takes effect, so its final terms could still change.
What is a tenant-screening report under the FCRA?
A tenant-screening report is treated as a consumer report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1681 et seq., when it is used to help decide whether to rent housing to an applicant.
What does 'maximum possible accuracy' mean under the FCRA?
Section 1681e(b) requires a consumer reporting agency to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the consumer reports it produces, which is the standard the FTC's complaint against RentGrow cites.
What happens when a consumer disputes information on a tenant-screening report?
Section 1681i sets out reinvestigation procedures a consumer reporting agency must generally follow when a consumer disputes information, rather than simply closing the dispute as invalid without further review.
Has this happened before with a tenant-screening company?
Yes. In 2023, the FTC and CFPB settled with TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions for $15 million over similar allegations involving the accuracy of rental-screening reports.
Does this settlement mean RentGrow's allegations are proven?
No. The FTC's claims are allegations resolved through a proposed settlement, not adjudicated findings of fact, and the order still requires approval.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 15
§ 1681eCompliance proceduresIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title. Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,128 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (Supreme Court of the United States 2021, 594 U.S. 413)“…of the plaintiffs’ credit files maintained by TransUnion. 15 U. S. C. §1681e(b). In particular, the plaintiffs argue…”
- Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2010, 605 F.3d 665)“…a violation because it had fulfilled its obligations under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e, which immunizes a reporting agency aga…”
- Sandra Cortez v. Trans Union (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2010, 617 F.3d 688)“…appeal.21 A. Reasonable Procedures for Maximum Accuracy, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) provide…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: How to Check if Your Record Has Been Expunged, Montana Background Check Laws (2026 Guide), Equifax Duplicate Account FCRA Settlement: Claims Closed
§ 1681iProcedure in case of disputed accuracyIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
Subject to subsection (f) and except as provided in subsection (g), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A) may be extended for not more than 15 additional days if the consumer reporting agency receives information from the consumer during that 30-day period that is relevant to the reinvestigation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,003 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Carvalho v. Equifax Information Services, LLC (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2010, 629 F.3d 876)“…ICES [15] Although the FCRA’s reinvestigation provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, does not on its face require that an a…”
- Sandra Cortez v. Trans Union (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2010, 617 F.3d 688)“…requirements of the FCRA. D. Reinvestigation, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i 1. Reasonable Reinvestigation, 15 U…”
- Renie Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Information Company (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 1995, 45 F.3d 1329)“…1681e(b); 2) violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(2); 3) violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(c); and 4) violated California Civil Co…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 (FCRA): Credit Report Rights Explained
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Federal Trade Commission, press release and complaint, In re RentGrow FCRA settlement (July 2026)(ftc.gov)
- Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1681e(b) (maximum possible accuracy)(uscode.house.gov)
- Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1681i (procedure in case of disputed accuracy)(uscode.house.gov)
- FTC and CFPB, TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions FCRA settlement (2023)(ftc.gov)