When someone applies to rent an apartment or house, landlords typically review their background before deciding whether to approve the application. Tenant screening often includes credit checks, eviction histories, criminal background checks, and (more recently) algorithmic scores or recommendations from private companies. While intended to help landlords assess risk, tenant screening has become a major barrier for low-income renters.
Many applicants are unaware of the records and criteria used in screening. Some may not know that they have an eviction or criminal record, while others are unaware of the factors landlords and screening companies rely on to evaluate applications. In Texas, state law requires landlords to disclose tenant screening criteria before applicants pay fees, and to refund fees if applicants are denied based on undisclosed criteria. In practice, however, we hear from tenant advocates and service providers in our network that applicants often do not receive these refunds. They pay fees, are denied without knowing the criteria, are left with less money, and must start the process over again.
The consequences are especially severe for vulnerable populations. Youth aging out of foster care often carry eviction histories that follow them into adulthood1Dion, R., Dworsky, A., Kauff, J., & Rebecca Kleinman. (2014). Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Retrieved from https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/youth_hsg_main_report.pd, and survivors of domestic violence can end up with criminal records simply because law enforcement arrests both parties during a disturbance2Kajeepeta, S. (2025, April). Barred from housing: The discriminatory impacts of criminal history restrictions in tenant screening. The Thurgood Marshall Institute at LDF. https://tminstituteldf.org/criminal-background-checks-housing-barrier/. These records translate into repeated denials and mounting application costs, locking out those who are most in need of stable housing. As algorithmic and AI-driven screening becomes more common, the risks of bias, opacity, and unfair exclusion only grows.
Tenant Screening Is a Consumer Protection Problem
Tenant screening has become a gatekeeping tool for landlords and property managers, yet screening often operates without the transparency and accountability necessary to protect renters. Screening reports are frequently inaccurate or incomplete: they may include the wrong person’s record, sealed or expunged data, or fail to account for dismissed or wrongful eviction cases. They can also include irrelevant information, like decades-old minor misdemeanors3Abrams, A. (2025, June 11). Tenant screening: A Billion-dollar industry with little oversight. What’s being done to protect renters? Shelterforce. https://shelterforce.org/2025/06/11/tenant-screening-a-billion-dollar-industry-with-little-oversight-whats-being-done-to-protect-renters/. In some cases, children’s names even appear on household evictions, potentially affecting their housing in the future despite no legal responsibility4King, S. (2021, November 11). Minor defendants: Kids are being named in evictions. Shelterforce. https://shelterforce.org/2021/11/11/minor-defendants-kids-are-being-named-in-evictions/.
Many landlords rely on these reports, including AI-generated scores or recommendations, sometimes making decisions based solely on these outputs rather than reviewing the underlying information. For applicants, the process is largely opaque. Renters often do not know which screening company evaluated them, what criteria were applied, or how decisions were reached, making it difficult to contest errors or understand how to qualify for housing5National Consumer Law Center. (2023). Re: Request for Information on Tenant Screening. Retrieved from https://www.nclc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/NCLC-Comments-to-FTC-CFPB-screening-RFI-no-appendices-Chi-Chi-Wu.pdf..
Combined with the growing use of algorithmic and AI-driven tools, these inaccuracies can be amplified, embedding bias and reducing opportunities for context or mitigating circumstances to be considered. These problems go far beyond the lost money renters spend on repeated application and screening fees. They can block access to housing, trap families in cycles of instability, and reinforce systemic inequities, often driven by inaccurate, incomplete, or unfairly applied information.
Tenant Screening Raises Fair Housing Concerns
Tenant screening practices systematically disadvantage certain groups, raising serious fair housing concerns. Policies like blanket bans on applicants with any eviction or criminal history directly reproduce existing inequities. Even minor convictions from decades ago, dismissed evictions, or records stemming from arrests as a survivor of domestic violence can prevent someone from securing housing for years. Low-income communities of color are disproportionately affected, as screening that relies heavily on eviction records, criminal histories, or algorithmic scoring often disqualifies historically marginalized renters, perpetuating cycles of poverty and housing instability6Kajeepeta, S. (2025, April). Barred from housing: The discriminatory impacts of criminal history restrictions in tenant screening. The Thurgood Marshall Institute at LDF. https://tminstituteldf.org/criminal-background-checks-housing-barrier/.
The rise of algorithmic and AI-driven tools can amplify these disparities while offering little transparency7Rhoades, G. (2024, June 3). Ghosts in the machine: How past and present biases haunt algorithmic tenant screening systems. Ghosts in the Machine: How Past and Present Biases Haunt Algorithmic Tenant Screening Systems. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/2024-june/how-past-present-biases-haunt-algorithmic-tenant-screening-systems/. Renters often have no access to the underlying algorithms, scoring criteria, or internal rules used to evaluate their applications. Without this information, applicants cannot challenge biased outcomes, correct errors in their records, or understand what steps would allow them to qualify for housing in the future. In this way, screening practices can operate as a hidden barrier, undermining fair housing protections designed to prevent discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, disability, and other protected characteristics.
The Landscape of Tenant Screening Regulation in Texas
Texas offers very limited protections for renters when it comes to tenant screening. There is no general source of income protection (aside from a carveout that allows localities to pass source-of-income protections specifically for veteran voucher holders, which only Denton and Fort Worth have enacted). The state also provides no mechanism for eviction record sealing, and statewide “field” preemption restricts localities’ ability to pass most tenant protections. As a result, tenant screening is largely unregulated in Texas, leaving renters vulnerable to opaque and potentially unfair practices.
Recent bills filed during the 2025 Texas Legislative session aimed to address some of these gaps, though none ultimately passed. However, these legislative efforts signal growing momentum for reform and reflect an increasing awareness of the harms caused by screening practices. Key measures included:
While the filing of these bills signaled important momentum for regulating tenant screening, Texas still lags behind other states and cities that have enacted robust tenant screening protections. Without stronger protections, Texas renters remain vulnerable to opaque screening practices, inaccurate or biased reports, and algorithmic decisions that can perpetuate inequities and unfairly block access to housing.
Building a Balanced Tenant Screening System
To ensure tenant screening serves as a fair and transparent part of the rental process, reforms should focus on several key principles:
- Transparency: Applicants should know the criteria used to evaluate them, be notified of the reasons for any denial, and have a meaningful opportunity to dispute inaccuracies.
- Fairness and proportionality: Screening practices should consider context and mitigating circumstances so that dismissed evictions, minor offenses, or records stemming from domestic violence do not unfairly block housing
- Affordability: Application and screening fees should be reasonable, capped, and refunded when legally required, preventing renters from being repeatedly burdened financially.
- Source-of-income protections: Renters using vouchers or other lawful sources of income should be protected against discrimination.
- Stability: Screening practices should allow individuals with imperfect histories to re-enter the rental market, reducing cycles of housing insecurity.
- Algorithmic accountability: Automated and AI-driven screening tools must be transparent, auditable, and subject to standards that prevent bias or discriminatory outcomes.
- Enforcement: Landlords, tenants, and screening companies should operate under clear, enforceable standards that protect renters from exploitation, inaccurate reporting, and unfair denials.
Other jurisdictions provide clear models for reform. The State of California and cities including Salt Lake City protect applicants from being denied based on vouchers or lawful income, while the Philadelphia Renters’ Access Act ensures credit scores are not used as automatic disqualifiers and requires public posting of screening criteria. New York’s Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act bans denials based solely on past evictions, Louisville, Kentucky limits the use of criminal history in screening, and Oakland and New Jersey’s fair chance laws give applicants with criminal records a chance to provide context. These policies demonstrate how tenant screening practices can be structured to protect renters, reduce inequities, and uphold fair housing principles. By adopting reforms that prioritize transparency, fairness, and accountability—as seen in other states and cities—Texas can balance both landlords’ interests and renters’ right to stable, equitable housing.
- 1Dion, R., Dworsky, A., Kauff, J., & Rebecca Kleinman. (2014). Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Retrieved from https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/youth_hsg_main_report.pd
- 2Kajeepeta, S. (2025, April). Barred from housing: The discriminatory impacts of criminal history restrictions in tenant screening. The Thurgood Marshall Institute at LDF. https://tminstituteldf.org/criminal-background-checks-housing-barrier/
- 3Abrams, A. (2025, June 11). Tenant screening: A Billion-dollar industry with little oversight. What’s being done to protect renters? Shelterforce. https://shelterforce.org/2025/06/11/tenant-screening-a-billion-dollar-industry-with-little-oversight-whats-being-done-to-protect-renters/
- 4King, S. (2021, November 11). Minor defendants: Kids are being named in evictions. Shelterforce. https://shelterforce.org/2021/11/11/minor-defendants-kids-are-being-named-in-evictions/
- 5National Consumer Law Center. (2023). Re: Request for Information on Tenant Screening. Retrieved from https://www.nclc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/NCLC-Comments-to-FTC-CFPB-screening-RFI-no-appendices-Chi-Chi-Wu.pdf.
- 6Kajeepeta, S. (2025, April). Barred from housing: The discriminatory impacts of criminal history restrictions in tenant screening. The Thurgood Marshall Institute at LDF. https://tminstituteldf.org/criminal-background-checks-housing-barrier/
- 7Rhoades, G. (2024, June 3). Ghosts in the machine: How past and present biases haunt algorithmic tenant screening systems. Ghosts in the Machine: How Past and Present Biases Haunt Algorithmic Tenant Screening Systems. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/2024-june/how-past-present-biases-haunt-algorithmic-tenant-screening-systems/
