Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tenant Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tenants, landlords and industry press committee to narrow smart-lock bill
Summary
SB 5937 would require landlords to offer non‑biometric/non‑app alternatives and provide privacy policies for smart access systems; tenant advocates urged stronger deletion and anti‑retaliation rules while rental-housing groups said the bill's definitions are too broad and could burden small providers.
A bill aimed at limiting tenant reliance on phone-based or biometric building-access systems prompted sharply contrasting testimony on Jan. 14.
Committee staff described SB 5937 as requiring a landlord who uses a "smart access system" to provide, on request, an alternative key that does not use biometric identifiers or a tenant’s personal mobile device (examples: key fob, key card, physical key). The bill also requires landlords to make available a privacy policy for the system developer/operator or provide a landlord privacy policy specifying data protocols and retention schedules, and to limit collection to the minimum information necessary for security purposes.
Senator Jamie Petersen (43rd District), the bill’s prime sponsor, framed the proposal as protecting tenants who were being required to download apps to access their homes and who feared tracking of movements: "feeling like you ought to be able to get into your own place without having to surrender that much control over your data is not unreasonable," she said.
Tenant advocates urged stronger privacy and deletion rights. Maddie Stutthof asked that landlords be required to request data deletion from third‑party providers on behalf of tenants; Ethan Martez (Tenants Revolt) described instances where tenants were locked out or faced retaliatory misuse of access systems and urged clear anti‑retaliation and privacy protections.
Opponents from the Rental Housing Association and other housing groups said the bill’s current definition of "smart access system" is too broad and could capture simple keypads and impose burdensome privacy-policy and disclosure requirements on small housing providers. Chester Baldwin and Daniel Bannon urged narrowing the definition and tailoring requirements to systems that actually collect resident data. Jake Mason of the Washington Multifamily Housing Association acknowledged shared goals but asked for clearer limits on data collection, amenity-tracking and administrative burdens.
Senators and witnesses indicated work remains to refine operative definitions and implementation language; the committee closed public testimony without taking action.
