Committee hears bill to ban landlord applicant screening fees; advocates cite barriers, landlords warn of costs

House Bill 2,967, which would prohibit landlords from requiring applicant screening charges or purchase of a specific screening product, drew extended testimony on Feb. 17 before the House Committee on Housing and Homelessness.

Sponsor Rep. Mark Gamba said the bill responds to a common experience in a low‑vacancy market: applicants often pay multiple screening fees when seeking housing and do not always receive refunds or copies of screening reports. “If someone must apply to at least eight apartments, that can add up very, very quickly,” Gamba said.

Supporters included tenant groups and housing advocates. Adrianna Grant and Timothy Morris described paying hundreds of dollars in application fees during searches; Grant said she had spent nearly $500 in fees and that tracking refunds was infeasible while meeting basic needs. Kevin Cronin of Housing Oregon and Ariel Nelson of the National Consumer Law Center argued the fees disproportionately burden low‑income renters and applicants of color and cited national estimates of substantial aggregate cost.

Opposition testimony came from Multifamily Northwest, the Oregon Rental Housing Association and screening vendors. Zach Lindahl (Multifamily Northwest) and Jason Miller (OR Rental Housing Association) said eliminating fees would shift screening costs to housing providers, potentially increasing rents and creating an influx of frivolous applications that slow placements. Amy Bertrand, who identified herself as a representative of a Portland screening company, provided cost estimates for various background and credit checks and said true screening costs can exceed modest caps.

Legal and policy witnesses described alternatives explored by a legislative work group, including transferable or universal applications and time‑limited screening results. John Van Laningham (Oregon Law Center) said the group considered options but found them complex or fiscally infeasible; he noted that the bill does not ban screening but bans screening charges and that some landlords already treat screening as a cost of doing business.

Committee members asked about last session’s changes requiring prompt refund of screening charges (amending ORS timelines) and whether education or enforcement could address nonrefunded fees; witnesses said small claims remedies exist but are not practical for many applicants. Affordable housing providers and some nonprofits said they generally do not charge screening fees and sometimes use vouchers or program funds to cover upfront costs for assisted households.

The committee closed the public hearing on HB 2,967 after hearing a broad array of written and oral testimony and accepted written comments for the record; no vote was taken on Feb. 17.