FTC and CFPB v. TransUnion Rental Screening: evictions that looked worse than they were
Landlords buy tenant screening reports to decide who gets an apartment. In October 2023 the FTC and the CFPB said TransUnion's rental screening company had sold reports that listed one eviction case as several, left out dismissals, labeled a landlord's claim as a judgment, and included sealed cases. Without admitting the allegations, TransUnion and the subsidiary agreed to pay $11 million in consumer redress and a $4 million civil penalty and to change how they report evictions.
A public record, not a client of this firm. Everything on this page comes from the complaint, the stipulated order and the FTC release cited at the end. The companies settled without admitting the allegations, and no court decided whether they were true. Usher Law Group did not represent anyone in this matter, we publish no results of our own, and nothing here predicts the outcome of any other case.
When you apply for an apartment, the landlord often buys a background report on you. It can include your credit, criminal records and eviction history. If the report shows evictions, the application may be over before anyone looks further.
TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, a Colorado-based subsidiary of the credit bureau Trans Union LLC, sells those reports to property owners, managers and employers. According to the complaint, it furnished hundreds of thousands of reports containing eviction records to its clients every year.
On October 12, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued both companies in federal court in Colorado and filed a proposed settlement the same day. The charge was that the eviction histories in those reports were often wrong in ways that made renters look worse than they were.
What the agencies said went wrong
An eviction case produces several entries on the court record: the filing, the outcome, and sometimes later filings such as a satisfaction of judgment. The complaint described four ways the screening company mishandled them.
- One case shown as several. The company displayed each court event as a separate entry. Before April 2021, a renter with two eviction cases, each with a filing and an outcome, could appear to have four. The company grouped entries by case only after receiving a civil investigative demand from the FTC, and kept sending the old format to some customers.
- Dismissals left out. Reports showed that an eviction case was filed but not that it was later dismissed, or showed a judgment for the landlord when the case was dismissed. The missing update was often months or years old. The company bought the records from LexisNexis under a contract saying it accepted the information "AS IS."
- A claim labeled a judgment. Until at least early 2019, a field labeled "Judgment Amount" often held the amount the landlord claimed, even in cases that were dismissed or won by the tenant. In March 2019 the label became "Amount," which the agencies said was still misleading.
- Sealed cases reported. Courts seal eviction records for many reasons. Before November 2021, the company had no procedure to make sure records sealed after it received them were removed, though it had notice of the problem by June 2018.
The complaint said the company received tens of thousands of consumer disputes about eviction records over the period, and that the errors caused longer housing searches, extra application fees, higher rent, temporary housing costs and denials.
What the law says
The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires a consumer reporting agency that prepares a report to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" of the information about the person (15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)). The complaint called the company's failures knowing and reckless.
The Act also requires an agency, on request, to disclose to the consumer everything in the file and "the sources of the information" (§ 1681g(a)). That matters because the fix for a wrong record is often at the source. According to the complaint, before June 2021 the company's file disclosures named only the court as the source of eviction and criminal records, even when the data came from a vendor. It began naming LexisNexis for evictions in June 2021, again only after the FTC's investigative demand, and criminal record vendors in June 2022.
What the settlement requires
The companies neither admitted nor denied the allegations. They agreed to a court order that requires written procedures to keep out of screening reports any sealed record, any eviction record without a final outcome, multiple filings for the same case, and any dollar amount other than a final judgment or a payment toward one. They must disclose all sources of the information in a consumer's file, monitor for errors, and give landlords a sample notice for explaining a denial.
FTC and CFPB v. TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions and Trans Union LLC
$11 million set aside for redress to affected consumers and a $4 million civil penalty paid to the CFPB. The FTC called it a record-breaking order.
Source: FTC press release (Oct. 12, 2023); stipulated order. A public record of someone else's case, not a result of this firm and not a prediction.
"Americans across the country were put at risk of wrongful housing denials," CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said.
What it means for you now
An agency action like this one changes a company's procedures. It does not decide your own claim. A consumer can sue a screening company under the FCRA: for a willful violation, actual damages or statutory damages of $100 to $1,000, plus punitive damages (15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)); for a negligent one, actual damages (§ 1681o(a)). Our page on tenant screening errors walks through the steps.
- Get the report the landlord used. Ask which company prepared it, then request your file from that company, including its sources.
- Compare it with the court record. Look for the same case listed twice, a filing without its dismissal, an amount labeled as a judgment that was never entered, or a sealed case.
- Dispute in writing. The agency generally has 30 days to reinvestigate. Keep a copy of everything you send. Our guide to disputing a report applies to screening companies too.
- Watch the clock. An FCRA claim must be filed within two years after you discover the violation and no more than five years after it happened (15 U.S.C. § 1681p).
Check what happened to your report
The FCRA requires a company found liable to pay the consumer's reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Our New York, New Jersey and Florida pages cover the state rules that can apply alongside it.
The pages this story points to
Tenant screening errors
Wrong evictions and records on rental background checks.
Read →Background check errors
Job and housing reports, and the accuracy rule that governs them.
Read →The FCRA
Accuracy, disputes, damages and the deadline to sue.
Read →Sources. Complaint, FTC and CFPB v. TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. and Trans Union LLC, No. 1:23-cv-02659 (D. Colo. filed Oct. 12, 2023), PDF; Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment, Civil Penalty Judgment, and Other Relief, PDF; FTC, "FTC and CFPB Settlement to Require Trans Union to Pay $15 Million over Charges It Failed to Ensure Accuracy of Tenant Screening Reports," press release (Oct. 12, 2023); CFPB, The CFPB's enforcement work in 2023.
Common questions
Is a tenant screening company covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act?
Yes. The complaint in this case describes the screening reports landlords buy as consumer reports and the company that sells them as a consumer reporting agency. That means it must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, give you your file and its sources on request, and investigate your disputes.
An eviction case against me was dismissed. Can a screening report still show it?
Under this settlement, TransUnion's screening company must have procedures to keep out eviction records with no final outcome, multiple filings for the same case, and sealed records. For any screening company, a report that shows a filing but leaves out a dismissal that is in the public record can be inaccurate under the FCRA, and you can dispute it.
Did the $11 million go to renters?
The order required the companies to set aside $11 million to provide redress to affected consumers, with the $4 million civil penalty paid to the CFPB. This page does not report how the redress was distributed or to whom.
Tell us what they did.
One conversation with an attorney, in your language. We tell you which laws the collector or the credit bureau broke, which deadline runs first, and what to save this week. If it is not a case we can take, we say so and tell you where to go.
(718) 484-7510The FDCPA and the FCRA require a company found liable to pay the consumer’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Our fee arrangement is confirmed in a written retainer before we begin. English, Russian and Spanish in-house; an interpreter for any other language.