Landlord and Tenant - Residential Housing - Rental Applications and Tenant Screening
HB0313 would regulate how landlords in Maryland handle rental applications and tenant screening for residential housing. The bill prohibits landlords from charging application or screening fees unless the unit is available for lease now or will be available within 30 days, and it requires landlords to give prospective tenants a written disclosure before collecting those fees. That disclosure must explain what information may appear in a tenant screening report, the criteria that could lead to denial or conditional acceptance, the screening company used, and the maximum application fee allowed.
The bill also limits how landlords may use certain court-related information in screening decisions. Landlords generally may not ask about, require disclosure of, or rely on a prospective tenant’s “proceeding” for nonpayment of rent or on a “shielded record,” and they may not take adverse action based solely on an old unshaped or incomplete record that does not show the outcome of the case. If a landlord takes adverse action, the tenant must receive a written notice stating the reasons, identifying the report or information relied on, and providing a copy of the screening report or enough information to obtain it. Prospective tenants are also given a right to dispute inaccurate or incomplete screening information, and landlords must notify them of that right.
The bill places duties on tenant screening companies as well. They must use reasonable procedures to prevent disclosure of proceedings or shielded records, may not disclose shielded information, and must clearly show the disposition or outcome of unshielded records. If improper disclosure occurs, the company must send corrected reports within five business days. The bill also bars waiver of these protections by tenants, authorizes the Attorney General to adopt regulations, and makes violations subject to civil penalties and consumer-protection enforcement.
In terms of state law, HB0313 adds a new section to the Real Property Article and expands the definition of unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices in the Commercial Law Article to include violations of the new tenant-screening rules. It creates private rights of action for injured individuals, including injunctive relief, refunds, damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs in certain cases, while also limiting landlord liability when they rely in good faith on a third-party report without actual knowledge that a record was shielded.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress is favorable, as the House committee reported it favorably with amendments and the House adopted it. The main points of contention are likely to center on landlord screening practices and the balance between tenant privacy/fairness and landlord discretion in evaluating rental risk. The bill’s restrictions on fee collection, use of eviction-related records, and exposure to consumer-protection penalties suggest support for tenant protections, while the liability and compliance provisions appear designed to address concerns from landlords and screening companies about accuracy and good-faith reliance.
HB0313 would amend Maryland landlord-tenant and consumer protection law by creating new rental application and tenant screening requirements in the Real Property Article and by classifying violations of those requirements as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices under the Commercial Law Article. It would affect landlords, tenant screening companies, prospective tenants, and enforcement authorities by imposing disclosure, notice, dispute, and record-handling obligations, along with civil penalties and private remedies.
The available legislative history shows a generally favorable posture toward the bill: it received a favorable committee report with amendments and was adopted by the House. No vote breakdown or committee transcript is provided, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the bill’s structure suggests broad support for tenant protections alongside some accommodation for landlord and screening-company concerns through liability limits and good-faith defenses.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s limits on landlord screening discretion, especially its restrictions on using eviction-related proceedings and shielded records, and its prohibition on charging fees unless a unit is actually available. Landlords and tenant screening companies may be concerned about compliance burdens, reporting obligations, and exposure to penalties, while tenant advocates are likely to support the bill’s privacy protections, fee restrictions, and rights to dispute inaccurate screening information. The bill attempts to balance these interests by allowing good-faith reliance on third-party reports and by preserving the use of lawful credit and consumer reports that are not based solely on eviction activity.