The Justice Department announced that a federal court entered a stipulated order imposing a $2.25 million civil-penalty judgment and an injunction on RentGrow Inc. The order resolves a federal case concerning tenant-screening reports used by landlords and property managers.
Key Facts
- Federal level: DOJ announced on August 12, 2026, that the court entered the stipulated order.
- Federal level: The order imposes a $2.25 million civil-penalty judgment and prospective compliance requirements.
- Federal level: RentGrow consented to the negotiated resolution but did not admit the complaint’s substantive allegations.
- Federal level: The settlement is not a litigated finding that RentGrow violated federal law.
What the government alleged
The United States filed its complaint on July 9 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case is United States v. RentGrow, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-02415.
The complaint alleged that RentGrow failed to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of its tenant-screening reports. It specifically alleged that some reports presented duplicate criminal or eviction records as separate proceedings.
The government also alleged that RentGrow failed to provide consumers with all requested file information and its sources. A separate count alleged failures in the procedures used when consumers disputed report information.
The final count alleged that RentGrow misrepresented whether successful dispute results had been communicated to landlords or property managers. These assertions remain allegations rather than adjudicated findings.
What the resolution requires
The July consent filing shows that RentGrow waived service and joined the request for entry of the negotiated order. The company neither admitted nor denied the substantive allegations, apart from admitting facts needed to establish the court’s jurisdiction.
The proposed order requires procedures designed to prevent duplicate criminal and eviction records in consumer reports. It also addresses consumer disclosures, dispute handling and statements about whether report changes were sent to housing providers.
The compliance framework includes reporting, monitoring, recordkeeping and acknowledgment requirements. The filed proposal states that the order runs for 10 years and that the court retains authority to enforce or modify it.
DOJ’s August 12 announcement is the official record used here for the court-entry event and final relief. The July court materials identify their attached order as proposed rather than as the signed, entered judgment.
What the order does not decide
A stipulated order is a negotiated judgment approved by a court. It creates enforceable duties without requiring a trial or a judicial decision on every disputed allegation.
The resolution does not establish individual findings about any renter’s report. The official records also do not identify compensation for individual consumers.
How the case reached this point
The Federal Trade Commission investigated the matter and referred it to the Justice Department. The FTC voted 2-0 to authorize the referral and approve the stipulated resolution.
The complaint and consent motion were filed together on July 9, when the order still required court approval. DOJ’s August 12 announcement marks the later enforcement event: entry of the civil judgment and injunction.
