HB313 regulates how landlords in Maryland may collect rental application and tenant screening fees and how they may use tenant screening information when evaluating prospective tenants. The bill prohibits a landlord from charging an application fee or screening fee unless the unit is available for lease, or will be available within 30 days, and requires a written disclosure before any fee is accepted. 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.
The bill also limits the use of certain court-related information in rental decisions. Landlords may not request, require, or consider a prospective tenant’s participation in a failure-to-pay-rent proceeding or a shielded record, may not condition acceptance on disclosure of that information, and may not take adverse action based on a refusal to disclose it. For unshielded records, landlords may not rely on records that are three years old or older if the report does not provide reasonably available information about the outcome of the case. The bill requires landlords to provide adverse-action notices, copies of screening reports or access information, and notice of the tenant’s right to dispute inaccurate or incomplete report information.
HB313 also imposes duties on tenant screening companies. They must use reasonable procedures to prevent disclosure of shielded or proceeding-related information, may not disclose such information, and must clearly indicate the disposition or outcome of unshielded records. If improper disclosure occurs, the company must send corrected reports within five business days. The bill makes waivers of these protections void, authorizes civil penalties and private remedies, and classifies violations of the fee and adverse-action provisions as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. It also allows the Attorney General to adopt implementing regulations.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new Real Property Article section governing rental applications and tenant screening, while also expanding the list of consumer-protection violations in the Commercial Law Article. It creates new statutory obligations for landlords, tenant screening companies, and the Department of Housing and Community Development, and it gives injured applicants new enforcement options including refunds, injunctive relief, damages in some cases, and attorney’s fees. The law is set to take effect October 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history suggests the bill had majority support on final passage, but with some opposition. Two floor amendments offered by Delegate R. Long were rejected before third reading, indicating some disagreement over the bill’s details or scope. The final third-reading vote passed 92-35, showing the measure was ultimately approved by a substantial margin.
HB313 adds a new § 8-222 to the Real Property Article and amends § 13-301 of the Commercial Law Article to treat violations of the new tenant-screening rules as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices. It changes landlord screening practices, fee collection, adverse-action notices, and the handling of shielded or outdated eviction-related records, while also regulating tenant screening companies’ reporting obligations and creating private and administrative enforcement mechanisms.
The bill appears to have been generally favorable in the House, as reflected by its passage on third reading by a wide margin. However, the rejection of two floor amendments shows there was some disagreement about the bill’s final form. The available record does not include committee testimony, but the vote pattern suggests broad support with a notable minority opposed.
The main points of contention appear to involve how far the bill should go in restricting landlords’ access to eviction-related information and how much liability should attach to landlords and tenant screening companies. Opponents likely focused on the limits on considering proceedings, shielded records, and older unshielded records, as well as the new disclosure and correction duties. The rejected amendments by Delegate R. Long suggest attempts to modify those provisions, though the specific changes are not provided in the record.