AN ACT Relating to the use of a smart access system in a residential property subject to the residential landlord-tenant act;
SB 5937 regulates the use of “smart access systems” in residential properties covered by Washington’s Residential Landlord-Tenant Act. The bill defines key terms related to smart access buildings and systems, including authentication data, reference data, biometric identifiers, and the types of information a system may collect or use. It also requires landlords to provide tenants with an alternative non-biometric key upon request, such as a physical key, key card, FOB, or keypad-based access method, rather than requiring use of a phone app or biometric technology.
The bill further requires landlords to make available the privacy policy for the smart access system developer or operator and to provide tenants a plain-language written policy describing what data is collected, how it is protected, how long it is retained, how unauthorized access is handled, and how data is destroyed or anonymized. It limits smart access systems to collecting only the minimum authentication and reference data necessary for access and specifies categories of information that may be used, such as user name, unit number, contact information, lease information, and access time/method for security and operational purposes.
SB 5937 amends Washington landlord-tenant law by adding new requirements for residential landlords who use smart access technology in rental housing. It creates statutory limits on data collection and use, imposes disclosure obligations regarding privacy and data security, and gives tenants a right to request a non-digital or non-biometric alternative means of entry. The bill affects landlords, property managers, smart access system developers/operators, and tenants in residential buildings, including apartments and other dwellings subject to the act.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and passed with strong bipartisan or near-unanimous votes in both chambers. The Senate committee advanced it unanimously, the Senate passed it 49-0, the House committee passed it unanimously, and the House final vote was 91-1. That voting pattern suggests general agreement that tenant privacy and access flexibility should be protected while allowing the use of modern building access technology.
The main policy tension in the bill is between the convenience and security benefits of smart access systems and concerns about privacy, biometric data, and tenant autonomy. The bill addresses those concerns by requiring alternative access methods and by limiting the collection, retention, and disclosure of data. Any remaining points of contention likely center on the operational burden for landlords and system providers, especially around compliance with notice, privacy-policy disclosure, and data-handling requirements, but the recorded votes indicate little overt opposition.