A Background Check Lists Crimes You Didn’t Commit
The $2.25 million RentGrow case exposed how duplicate records, bad matching and incomplete data can make one criminal case—or one eviction—look much worse than reality.
Most people don’t think about a tenant-screening database until an apartment disappears because of one. Then the report arrives and there it is: a criminal case that belongs to somebody else, an eviction that was dismissed, or the same proceeding listed two or three times as if each entry were a separate event. At that point, trying to bury the problem in Google misses the issue. The database used to make the housing decision has to be corrected.
The $2.25 million case
RentGrow was accused of making some histories look worse than they were
The Federal Trade Commission alleged that tenant-screening company RentGrow failed to maintain reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of reports sold to landlords and property managers.
Among the allegations: duplicate case records and multiple entries for the same criminal or eviction proceeding could appear in a report, creating the impression that an applicant had more convictions or eviction cases than actually existed.
A federal court entered an order in August resolving the government’s allegations and imposing a $2.25 million civil penalty plus compliance requirements.
The allegations show four ways a report can go wrong
| Problem | What it can look like | What the RentGrow case alleged |
|---|---|---|
| Duplicate records | One case appears two or three times. | The FTC alleged multiple entries could make consumers appear to have more criminal convictions or eviction proceedings than they actually had. |
| Bad identity matching | Another person’s criminal or housing record is attached to you. | Historical addresses and middle names were among information used for matching records to consumers. |
| Missing source information | You cannot figure out where a suspicious record came from. | The government alleged some source information used in compiling reports was not fully disclosed to consumers requesting their files. |
| Broken dispute handling | You point out an obvious duplication and the dispute goes nowhere. | The complaint alleged certain disputes—including disputes involving duplicate records—were improperly labeled invalid or not fully processed. |
These are not obscure errors
FTC consumer guidance tells renters to look specifically for several recurring problems in tenant background reports.
Your landlord’s decision may trigger specific rights
A denial is not the only event that counts. A higher deposit, higher rent or required co-signer can also be an adverse action when a consumer report influenced the decision.
If the landlord only tells you, “You didn’t pass the background check,” ask for the name, address and phone number of the consumer reporting company and request the adverse-action information in writing for your records.
The dispute clock
| Timing | What generally happens |
|---|---|
| Day 0 | The consumer reporting agency receives your dispute. |
| Within 5 business days | The agency generally must notify the company or person that furnished the disputed information and send the relevant dispute material. |
| Usually within 30 days | The consumer reporting agency must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation free of charge. |
| Up to 45 days in some cases | The normal period can sometimes be extended, including when additional relevant information is supplied during the investigation. |
| If inaccurate or unverifiable | The item must be corrected or deleted from the consumer’s file. |
| Within 5 business days after completion | The consumer reporting agency must provide written notice of the reinvestigation results. |
You can ask for the corrected result to go back to the landlord.
If inaccurate information is deleted or a dispute statement is added, federal law gives consumers a mechanism to request notification to designated recipients who recently received the report. In a housing context, that can matter when the original landlord saw the bad file only days or weeks earlier.
The fastest repair sequence
Get the actual screening report
Do not dispute from memory or based only on what the leasing agent told you. Get the report and mark every incorrect entry.
Report copy Report date Screening companyIdentify the error type
Separate wrong-person records, duplicates, incorrect outcomes, obsolete information and incorrect balances. Each problem may require different evidence.
Gather the strongest source documents
Use court dispositions, dismissal orders, expungement or sealing orders, payment records, identity documents or other authoritative material that directly contradicts the bad entry.
Dispute with the screening company
Identify the exact item, explain what is wrong and attach copies of supporting documents. Keep proof of what you submitted and when.
Dispute with the source when appropriate
If a court, landlord, creditor or other furnisher is supplying incorrect information, challenge the error there too. Fixing the source can prevent the same mistake from feeding another consumer-reporting company later.
Tell the landlord immediately
Do not wait 30 days in silence if the apartment is still potentially available. Tell the property manager that a specific consumer-report item is formally disputed and provide clear documentation if appropriate.
Get the updated report
If the screening company corrects or deletes the entry, obtain the revised report and make sure the landlord receives the corrected version.
Escalate a failed dispute
If the company fails to investigate properly or leaves demonstrably inaccurate information in place, preserve the paper trail. Consumer-reporting complaints can be submitted to federal regulators, and an attorney can evaluate possible FCRA or state-law claims.
Do not waste time fixing the wrong layer
| Where the error appears | What to fix first | Will Google removal solve it? |
|---|---|---|
| Tenant-screening report | The consumer reporting agency and, where appropriate, the source/furnisher. | No |
| Court record itself is wrong | The court or record source, then the screening company. | No |
| Google result accurately reflects a wrong screening database page | Correct the underlying database/source first. | Maybe useful later, but not the core repair |
| Public webpage contains different inaccurate information | Publisher/source correction plus any applicable search-removal process. | Separate issue |
A few records deserve extra scrutiny
| Record type | Federal baseline |
|---|---|
| Most civil lawsuits and judgments | Generally cannot be reported after seven years under the FCRA. |
| Arrest records | Generally subject to a seven-year FCRA reporting limit. |
| Bankruptcy | Can generally be reported for up to ten years. |
| Criminal convictions | The FCRA itself does not impose the same seven-year reporting limit on convictions. |
| State-protected or sealed information | State law may impose additional limits or prohibit use of certain records even where federal law would otherwise permit reporting. |
Do not assume a record is reportable simply because it exists in a courthouse database. State sealing laws, eviction-record protections and other local rules can be more protective than the federal baseline.
What should you do next?
Choose what happened. The tool will build a short response plan. You can also download a background-report error checklist and a plain-language dispute-letter template.
