Kelly v. RealPage: Tenant-Screening Companies Must Tell You Where the Dirt Came From

The setup

Apartment applicants whose RealPage tenant-screening reports contained other people's criminal and eviction records asked RealPage for their files. RealPage refused to identify the third-party vendors that had supplied the public-record data — making it nearly impossible to trace and kill the errors at the source.

The holding

Kelly v. RealPage Inc., 47 F.4th 202 (3d Cir. 2022). A consumer's request for her file under § 1681g(a) requires the CRA to disclose the sources of the information, including intermediary vendors — and no magic words are required:

"[A]ny generalized 'request' by a consumer for the CRA's information about her triggers the CRA's disclos[ure] obligation under § 1681g(a)."

The court also vacated the denial of class certification, rejecting the argument that reviewing voluminous records defeats ascertainability:

"A straightforward 'yes-or-no' review of existing records to identify class members is administratively feasible even if it requires review of individual records with cross-referencing of voluminous data from multiple sources."

Why it matters

Tenant screening is a wild west of recycled, name-matched public records, and the vendors who launder those records to the screeners have long hidden behind them. Kelly gives NJ renters a discovery tool before any lawsuit: request your full file, demand the sources, and follow the chain. When a screening report cost you an apartment, that sourcing trail is where the case lives.

For the practical playbook, see TransUnion SmartMove tenant screening errors. Ready to have a report reviewed? Start at our background-check and tenant-screening attorney page.