A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 47-16 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to landlords and criminal background checks.
HB 1395 would add a new section to North Dakota Century Code chapter 47-16 governing rental applications and tenant screening. If a landlord requires a criminal, credit, or other background check as a condition of renting, the prospective tenant could request proof that the check was completed. The landlord would then be required to provide that proof within seven days of receiving the completed background check.
If the landlord does not timely provide the requested proof, the bill would require the landlord to refund all fees the prospective tenant paid for the background check while trying to secure the lease. The measure is aimed at increasing transparency in the rental application process and giving applicants a remedy when screening fees are charged but documentation is not provided.
The bill would have created a new tenant-protection requirement in landlord-tenant law by imposing a disclosure obligation on landlords who use screening checks and by authorizing a fee refund remedy for noncompliance. It would have affected landlords, property managers, and rental applicants by regulating how background-check fees are handled and by giving tenants a right to request documentation of completed screening. Because the bill failed, no change was made to chapter 47-16.
The available record shows limited formal debate or recorded votes, but the bill’s introduction and committee adoption of the title suggest it was treated as a consumer-protection measure rather than a controversial overhaul. The overall framing indicates support for tenant transparency and accountability in rental screening. However, the bill ultimately failed, which suggests it did not secure enough legislative support to advance.
The main point of contention would likely have been the burden placed on landlords and property managers to track, furnish, and respond to proof requests within a short deadline, along with the automatic refund penalty for missing the deadline. Supporters would likely emphasize fairness to prospective tenants who pay screening fees and deserve confirmation that the check was actually completed. Opponents would likely focus on administrative costs, compliance complexity, and the possibility of refunds being triggered by procedural noncompliance rather than any substantive issue with the screening itself.