Defines "tenant portal" for the purposes of residential tenancies.
SB 1523 updates Oregon’s residential landlord-tenant laws to regulate the use of landlord-provided digital systems, or “tenant portals,” in rental applications and tenancy administration. A landlord that accepts applications through a portal must either post a printable application on its website or provide a printed/printable copy within seven days of a written request, and must process applications whether they are submitted through the portal or outside it. The bill also prohibits landlords from requiring a tenant or applicant to use a portal as the sole method for identity verification, signing addenda or other legal agreements, or submitting tenancy-related documents when an alternative is requested in writing.
The bill further requires landlords to allow tenants to pay rent and other charges by check or other commercially reasonable non-electronic methods, and bars landlords from requiring debit card, credit card, electronic check, tenant portal, or other electronic payment as the only payment method. If a landlord refuses an acceptable payment, the landlord may not charge a late fee or terminate the tenancy for nonpayment based on that refusal. The bill also amends Oregon’s landlord-tenant statutes to reflect the new definition of “tenant portal” and to require that access to common areas or facilities include at least one non-portal means of access.
SB 1523 also revises Oregon’s rules on landlord fees and habitability. It amends ORS 90.302 to allow certain processing fees passed through from payment processors for electronic payments, but only if tenants are also allowed to pay by non-electronic means and can request records of the fees. It preserves and clarifies the existing framework for late fees, dishonored checks, pet-related fees, smoking violations, parking violations, and other noncompliance fees, while adding limits and notice requirements. In addition, the bill amends ORS 90.320 to require landlords to maintain habitable premises and expressly includes a non-portal means of unlocking access to common areas, while also retaining the requirement for cooling in certain newer buildings.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears generally favorable, as reflected in committee and floor votes that moved the measure forward with substantial support. The Senate committee recommended passage unanimously, and both chambers approved the bill, though the Senate floor vote was more divided than the House vote. The bill’s title and structure suggest it was framed as a consumer-protection and access measure for renters rather than a major overhaul of landlord-tenant law.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between tenant convenience and landlord operational flexibility. Supporters appear to favor protecting renters who lack reliable internet access, prefer paper records, or do not want to be forced into digital-only systems. Potential critics may object to the administrative burden on landlords, the requirement to maintain parallel paper and electronic processes, and the restrictions on electronic-only payment systems. The bill also creates private rights to damages for noncompliance, which may have been a further concern for landlords and property managers.
The bill amends Oregon’s Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, including ORS 90.100, 90.302, and 90.320, and adds new provisions to ORS chapter 90. It creates a statutory definition of “tenant portal,” imposes disclosure and alternative-access requirements for portal-based applications and tenancy administration, requires non-electronic payment options, and establishes remedies for violations. It also modifies landlord fee rules and habitability/access provisions, affecting landlords, tenants, applicants, property managers, and payment-processing arrangements across residential rentals, including some manufactured dwelling and floating home contexts.
The bill appears to have broad but not unanimous support. It passed the Senate committee 5-0, the Senate floor 22-7, the House committee 11-1, and the House floor 48-6. That voting pattern suggests the measure was generally viewed positively as a renter-access and consumer-protection bill, while still drawing some opposition from members likely concerned about compliance burdens or limits on electronic systems.
The central dispute is between tenant access and landlord digitization. Supporters likely emphasized that renters should not be forced to use a portal for applications, signatures, document submission, or rent payment, especially where paper or other non-electronic options are needed. Opponents or skeptics likely focused on the cost and administrative complexity of maintaining paper alternatives, processing non-portal applications, and accepting non-electronic payments. The bill’s damages provisions and restrictions on late fees or termination when a landlord refuses an acceptable payment method are additional likely flashpoints.