RentGrow Tenant Screening Settlement: $2.25M Order Entered

Updated: August 23, 2026

The RentGrow tenant screening settlement is no longer merely a proposed agreement awaiting court approval. The Justice Department announced on August 12, 2026, that a federal court entered the stipulated order, imposing a $2.25 million civil penalty judgment and an injunction related to RentGrow’s tenant-screening practices.

Correction: An earlier version of this article said the proposed order was still awaiting court approval. That was based on the FTC’s July 9 announcement. A newer Justice Department announcement confirms that the court entered the order on August 12.

What Changed in the RentGrow Tenant Screening Settlement

The Federal Trade Commission announced the case on July 9, 2026, after referring it to the Justice Department. At that point, the government had filed a complaint and a proposed stipulated order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The FTC’s original RentGrow settlement announcement correctly described the order as proposed when it was published.

The status changed afterward.

On August 12, the Justice Department announced that the federal court had entered the stipulated order. The order now imposes the $2.25 million civil penalty judgment and injunction rather than simply proposing those terms.

The FTC’s RentGrow case page was still labeled “Pending” and showed a July 9 last-updated date when this report was checked. The newer Justice Department announcement provides the more current status of the court order.

What the Government Alleged

RentGrow provides tenant-screening consumer reports to landlords and property managers. The government alleged that the company failed to comply with several Fair Credit Reporting Act requirements.

One allegation involved duplicate criminal and eviction case records. According to the complaint, some reports displayed multiple entries for the same proceeding, which could make an applicant appear to have more criminal cases or eviction actions than the underlying records showed.

The government also alleged that RentGrow failed in some instances to disclose all information and sources used in a consumer’s report when the consumer requested a disclosure.

Another part of the complaint concerned consumer disputes. The government alleged that RentGrow sometimes treated disputes as invalid without completing procedures required by the FCRA.

The complaint further alleged an FTC Act violation involving representations to consumers after successful disputes. According to the government, some consumers were told that corrected information had been communicated to property managers when those property managers instead received information indicating that no change had occurred.

What the Court-Entered Order Requires

The Justice Department says the stipulated order requires RentGrow to pay a $2.25 million civil penalty.

The injunction also prohibits the alleged misconduct and requires related compliance reporting, monitoring and recordkeeping.

The original FTC description says the order includes requirements designed to address reasonable procedures for maximum possible accuracy, including procedures involving multiple records for the same criminal or eviction proceeding.

It also addresses FCRA disclosure and dispute obligations and prohibits misleading representations about whether updated screening information is supplied following a successful consumer dispute.

What the Order Does Not Mean

The court-entered settlement should not be described as a trial verdict establishing every allegation in the complaint after litigation. The stipulated order resolves the government’s allegations and imposes enforceable obligations.

The $2.25 million is a civil penalty judgment. The government announcements reviewed for this report do not describe it as a $2.25 million consumer refund fund.

The order also does not mean that every RentGrow report contained an error or that every rental applicant screened through RentGrow suffered an adverse housing decision.

And correcting inaccurate information does not guarantee approval for an apartment. Landlords may consider other lawful criteria when making rental decisions.

What Rights Renters Have After a Negative Screening Decision

Federal tenant-screening protections extend beyond the RentGrow case.

If a landlord makes an unfavorable decision because of information in a tenant background check, the Fair Credit Reporting Act generally requires an adverse-action notice.

An adverse action can include rejecting an application, requiring a co-signer, charging a higher rent or requiring a larger security deposit.

FTC guidance says the notice must identify the tenant-screening company and explain the consumer’s rights to dispute inaccurate information and obtain a free copy of the report if requested within 60 days.

Renters can review the FTC’s tenant background check rights guidance.

How to Check and Dispute a Tenant Screening Report

1. Get the adverse-action notice. Save a written copy when possible and identify the screening company used by the landlord.
2. Request your report promptly. If the housing decision was based on the report, request the free copy within 60 days of the adverse-action notice.
3. Check identifying information. Look for incorrect names, birth dates, addresses or records belonging to someone else.
4. Check for duplicate records. Confirm that one criminal, civil or eviction proceeding has not been displayed as multiple separate cases.
5. Review case outcomes. Verify dismissals, settlements, satisfied judgments, sealed records, expungements and other dispositions.
6. Dispute inaccuracies with the screening company. Explain each error and provide copies of supporting records.
7. Tell the landlord about the dispute. That can help the housing provider understand that information used in its decision is being challenged.
8. Keep copies of everything. Preserve the report, dispute correspondence, court records, emails and confirmation numbers.

The FTC’s tenant-screening dispute guidance says background-check companies generally must investigate a dispute and provide results within 30 days. In some circumstances, the period can extend to 45 days.

If the Screening Company Corrects the Report

If disputed information is inaccurate, incomplete or cannot be verified, the screening company generally must correct or delete it.

FTC guidance recommends getting an updated report to the landlord and asking the screening company to provide the corrected information as well.

If the dispute does not resolve the problem, federal law may also allow the consumer to request that a statement of dispute be included in the file and certain future reports.

Who May Be Most Affected

The settlement is most directly relevant to people whose rental applications were screened through RentGrow, particularly applicants who believe their reports contained duplicate, outdated, incomplete or mismatched information.

But the practical consumer rights discussed here apply more broadly to tenant-screening reports covered by the FCRA.

State and local laws may provide additional protections or shorter dispute timelines.

Bottom Line

The RentGrow tenant screening settlement has moved beyond the proposed stage. The Justice Department says a federal court entered the stipulated order on August 12, imposing a $2.25 million civil penalty judgment and an injunction.

For renters, the larger lesson is practical: get the screening report after an adverse housing decision, check it carefully, dispute information that is inaccurate or incomplete and preserve documentation throughout the process.

The order does not create an announced consumer refund program, and it does not establish that every RentGrow report was inaccurate.