AI housing and lending laws by state
AI Laws USA tracks 38 U.S. AI rules on housing and credit decisions across federal, state, county, and city government. Each entry links to its official source.
Federal housing and credit decisions rules (14)
-
In effect
Louis v. SafeRent
D. Mass. · Effective November 20, 2024 · Louis v. SafeRent Solutions, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-10800 (D. Mass.)
SafeRent agreed in November 2024 to a $2.275M settlement and a five-year ban on using its 'SafeRent Score' for housing-voucher applicants, after a class action alleged its AI tenant-screening tool systematically denied housing to Black and Hispanic Section 8 voucher holders. The first major AI tenant-screening Fair Housing Act settlement.
-
In effect
ECOA / Regulation B (AI credit discrimination)
United States · Effective October 28, 1975 · 15 U.S.C. § 1691; 12 C.F.R. Part 1002
Lenders cannot discriminate in credit decisions and must give you specific, accurate reasons when they deny or worsen your credit — even if the decision was made by an AI model. Earlier CFPB guidance said lenders can't hide behind 'black box' algorithms; that guidance was withdrawn in May 2025, but the underlying statute and regulation still require accurate adverse-action notices.
-
In effect
FCRA (AI in credit & background checks)
United States · Effective April 25, 1971 · 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
When a company uses a consumer report or score — including AI-generated risk scores from background-check and tenant/employment screening firms — to deny you credit, insurance, housing, or a job, it must tell you and identify the agency that supplied the report. You have the right to a free copy of your file and to dispute inaccurate information, no matter how algorithmic the scoring was.
-
In effect
DOJ-RealPage Consent Decree (algorithmic rent)
United States · Effective May 1, 2026 · United States v. RealPage, Inc. et al., No. 1:24-cv-00710 (M.D.N.C.); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–2
In November 2025, the DOJ settled with RealPage — the dominant algorithmic rent-pricing software company — requiring it to stop using competitors' real-time pricing data to coordinate rents. The settlement received preliminary court approval in May 2026 and places RealPage under a court-appointed compliance monitor for seven years. Thousands of property managers used RealPage's software; the DOJ alleged it enabled competing landlords to align rental prices, harming renters across the country.
-
In effect
CFPB AI chatbot circular
United States · Effective October 23, 2024 · CFPB Issue Spotlight (June 2023); CFPB UDAAP / ECOA / TILA enforcement posture (2024)
Building on its 2023 chatbot report, the CFPB has warned that banks and lenders using generative-AI chatbots that mislead consumers — about fees, account terms, or credit denials — face liability under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Truth in Lending Act. Hallucinating chatbots are not a regulatory loophole.
-
In effect
HUD FHEO Tenant Screening AI
United States · Effective May 2, 2024 · HUD FHEO, Guidance on Application of the Fair Housing Act to the Screening of Applicants for Rental Housing (May 2, 2024)
HUD guidance applying the Fair Housing Act to algorithmic tenant screening — landlords and screening vendors share liability for discriminatory outcomes.
-
Blocked / in litigation
DOJ / Multistate v. Yardi
W.D. Wash. · Effective December 29, 2023 · Duffy v. Yardi Systems, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-01391 (W.D. Wash.)
Renters brought a parallel class action against Yardi Systems — RealPage's main competitor in algorithmic rent-pricing — alleging it likewise coordinated multifamily rents across competing landlords. State AGs joined as enforcement actors; the case is moving in parallel with the DOJ-RealPage proceeding.
-
In effect
CFPB Circ. 2023-03 (AI credit)
United States · Effective September 19, 2023 · CFPB Circular 2023-03 (Sept. 19, 2023)
CFPB Circular 2023-03 clarifies that lenders using AI or other complex credit models for credit denial cannot rely on checklist adverse-action notices. They must provide specific, accurate reasons under ECOA — even if the AI's decision is hard to explain.
-
In effect
CFPB § 1071 Rule (small-biz AI lending)
United States · Effective August 29, 2023 · 12 C.F.R. Part 1002 Subpart B; 88 Fed. Reg. 35150
Lenders covered by the rule must collect and report demographic and transactional data on small-business credit applications — including data needed to detect algorithmic discrimination by AI underwriting models.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Huskey v. State Farm
N.D. Ill. · Effective December 14, 2022 · Huskey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 1:22-cv-07014 (N.D. Ill.)
Black homeowners sued State Farm in 2022, alleging the insurer's claims-handling AI subjected them to greater scrutiny — more documentation requests, more delays, and higher denial rates — than white homeowners. One of the leading insurance-AI disparate-treatment cases.
-
In effect
DOJ Civil Rights AI Statement
United States · Effective April 25, 2023 · DOJ-CFPB-EEOC-FTC Joint Statement (Apr. 25, 2023)
DOJ joined three other federal agencies in an interagency statement confirming that existing civil rights laws — Fair Housing Act, ECOA, Title VII, ADA — apply fully to AI and algorithmic systems. AI does not create a 'liability shield' for discrimination.
-
In effect
Interagency AI/ML Risk Mgmt (OCC/Fed/FDIC)
United States · Effective March 31, 2021 · 86 Fed. Reg. 16837; SR 11-7; OCC Bulletin 2011-12
Banking regulators issued a joint request for information setting their supervisory expectations for banks using AI and machine learning — covering model risk, fair lending, third-party AI vendors, and consumer-protection compliance. The 2011 model-risk-management guidance (SR 11-7) governs AI underwriting models.
-
Repealed / replaced
HUD FHEO Digital Advertising AI (withdrawn)
United States · Effective May 2, 2024 · HUD FHEO, Guidance on Application of the Fair Housing Act to the Advertising of Housing, Credit, and Other Real Estate-Related Transactions through Digital Platforms (Apr. 29, 2024) — withdrawn eff. Sept. 17, 2025, 91 FR 17291
HUD guidance (2024) explaining that algorithmic ad-targeting causing discriminatory exposure could violate the Fair Housing Act. HUD WITHDREW this guidance effective September 17, 2025 (notice published April 6, 2026); it should no longer be relied on as authoritative. The Fair Housing Act itself still applies and HUD says non-compliant conduct remains subject to enforcement.
-
Blocked / in litigation
DOJ/HUD Statement of Interest (algorithmic rent)
DOJ / HUD · Effective March 1, 2024 · Statement of Interest of the United States, McKenna Duffy v. Yardi Systems, Inc., et al., W.D. Wash. (Mar. 2024)
The Justice Department's Antitrust Division and the FTC (not HUD) filed a joint Statement of Interest in Duffy v. Yardi Systems (W.D. Wash.), arguing that competing landlords' joint use of Yardi's common pricing algorithm can constitute per-se illegal price fixing under the Sherman Act, even when landlords retain some discretion to deviate from the algorithm's recommendations.
State housing and credit decisions rules (12)
-
In effect
North Carolina AG LivCor algorithmic rent settlement (2026)
North Carolina · Effective June 26, 2026 · NC v. LivCor LLC, consent decree entered June 26, 2026, US v. RealPage Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00710 (M.D.N.C.); $7M multistate settlement (NC, MN, CA, CO, CT, IL, MA, OR, TN)
North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson joined eight other state attorneys general in reaching a $7 million settlement with LivCor LLC, a Blackstone-owned company that managed approximately 3,500 apartments in North Carolina. The consent decree, entered June 26, 2026 in the Middle District of North Carolina, permanently bans LivCor from using algorithmic pricing software to coordinate rents with competing landlords. The settlement arose from the same litigation targeting RealPage Inc.'s revenue management platform — algorithmic software that critics and now courts have found enables competing property managers to share nonpublic pricing data and move rents in lockstep, keeping apartment rents artificially elevated. The $7 million was distributed among the nine participating state AGs. For North Carolina, the practical scope is the 3,500 apartments LivCor managed within the state. This is an enforcement action rather than legislation — it results from DOJ and multistate AG litigation — but the prohibition is legally binding on LivCor and its successors, and North Carolina's AG participation made it effective for NC residents. The underlying federal case, US v. RealPage Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00710, continues separately. AG Jackson also issued guidance warning other property management companies in North Carolina that algorithmic rent coordination practices face the same legal exposure.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
NJ Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act
New Jersey · Effective July 1, 2027 · FAIR Act, N.J. P.L.2026, c.43 (A3497/S451), C.56:9-20 to 56:9-26 — approved July 20, 2026; effective July 1, 2027
New Jersey Governor Sherrill signed the Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act on July 20, 2026 (P.L.2026, c.43). Starting July 1, 2027, it is a violation of the New Jersey Antitrust Act for landlords to pay for or use the services of an algorithmic rent 'coordinator' — software that sets or recommends rents, lease terms or occupancy levels using competitors' nonpublic data or the same pricing algorithm across multiple landlords — and for anyone to perform that coordinating function. RealPage-style revenue-management tools are the target. Municipal ordinances that conflict with the act are preempted.
-
In effect
Connecticut algorithmic rent ban — HB 8002 (eff. Jan 1, 2026)
Connecticut · Effective January 1, 2026 · CT HB 8002 (2025 Session), eff. January 1, 2026; amends CT Antitrust Act
Connecticut enacted HB 8002 in 2025, the first state law prohibiting landlords from using 'revenue management devices' to set residential rent prices. Specifically, it bars tools that use nonpublic competitor data — such as competitors' current lease rates and occupancy levels — to recommend pricing, while allowing use of publicly available market data. Penalties run up to $100,000 for individuals and $1,000,000 for corporations per violation. Enforced under the Connecticut Antitrust Act; private parties may also bring suit. Effective January 1, 2026.
-
In effect
New York S7882 (felony to use algorithms to coordinate residential rents)
New York · Effective December 15, 2025 · N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 340-b (S7882, 2025)
This law makes it a crime to help residential landlords coordinate the rents they charge instead of competing with one another, including by operating or licensing software, a data-analytics service, or an algorithmic tool that performs a rent-setting coordination function across two or more landlords. The conduct must be done knowingly or recklessly. Violations are a Class E felony, with fines up to $1 million for a corporation and up to $100,000 or up to four years in prison for an individual.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
SB 26-189 (Colorado ADMT Law)
Colorado · Effective January 1, 2027 · SB 26-189 (Colo. 2026)
Colorado's replacement AI law focuses on transparency rather than broad anti-discrimination duties. Starting January 1, 2027, companies using automated decision-making technology to materially influence consequential decisions (employment, housing, lending, insurance, healthcare) must notify consumers before use and provide post-decision disclosures; developers must give deployers technical documentation.
-
In effect
MA AG
MA · Effective July 10, 2025 · MA AG — $2.5M Earnest Operations Settlement (AI Underwriting Discrimination) (2025-07-10)
Settlement with student-loan lender Earnest over allegations its AI underwriting model and 'Knockout Rule' produced disparate impacts on Black, Hispanic, and non-citizen applicants. Mandates AI governance, annual fair-lending testing, AG reporting.
-
In effect
NJ AG Platkin / DCR
NJ · Effective January 9, 2025 · NJ AG Platkin / DCR — Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the NJLAD (2025-01-09)
13-page guidance affirming NJLAD applies to ADS-driven discrimination in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations. Launches Civil Rights and Technology Initiative and Civil Rights Innovation Lab.
-
Blocked / in litigation
RealPage v. James — NY algorithmic rent ban enjoined (2026)
New York · RealPage, Inc. v. James (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2026) (Caproni, J.) (preliminary injunction)
RealPage, which makes rent-pricing software, sued New York's Attorney General to stop the state's 2025 law banning landlords from setting rents with certain algorithmic tools. On September 29, 2026, a federal judge in Manhattan temporarily blocked the key part of the law (Section 3) while the case goes on and refused to dismiss the lawsuit. The judge called it a close call but found RealPage 'marginally' likely to win its First Amendment argument, partly because the law treats software the same whether it uses public or non-public data. This is not a final ruling.
-
Repealed / replaced
Colorado AI Act (repealed)
Colorado · SB 24-205, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1701 et seq. (repealed/replaced 2026)
The first comprehensive US state AI law would have required developers and deployers of 'high-risk' AI systems to use reasonable care to prevent algorithmic discrimination in decisions about jobs, housing, lending, insurance, education, and healthcare. After repeated delays, it was repealed and replaced in May 2026 by a narrower transparency-focused law (SB 26-189) before it ever took effect.
-
Proposed / pending
NJ A5496 AI mortgage tool bias audits
New Jersey · NJ A5496 (2026-2027 Session)
This New Jersey Assembly bill would regulate AI tools used in residential mortgage lending decisions. Vendors would need a bias audit within the past year before selling a tool and would have to provide annual audits; lenders would have to post a summary of the latest audit and tell every applicant that an AI tool will be used. Lenders could only input quantifiable metrics, not categories of persons, into the tool.
-
Expired
GA HB 679 End Rental Price Fixing Act (2025-2026, expired)
GA · GA HB 679, 125th GA General Assembly (2025-2026 Regular Session); O.C.G.A. Title 10 amendment
Georgia House Bill 679, introduced February 27, 2025, would have amended the 'Fair Business Practices Act of 1975' (O.C.G.A. Title 10, Chapter 1, Article 15, Part 2) to prohibit the use of AI, software, or algorithmic devices to coordinate rental prices among landlords. The bill would have made such algorithmic price-coordination agreements unenforceable as contracts in restraint of trade, and criminalized them with penalties of 1–5 years imprisonment and fines of $1,000–$5,000. The Georgia 2025–2026 regular session (first year) adjourned sine die on April 2, 2026 without the bill passing. A companion Senate bill, SB 559, was also introduced but similarly expired without passage. Georgia is one of the most active states for data center moratoriums but has not yet enacted state-level algorithmic rent regulation.
-
Expired
Algorithmic rent price-fixing ban
Illinois · IL SB343 (104th General Assembly, 2025-2026)
Would amend the Illinois Antitrust Act to ban landlords from using shared rent-setting algorithms or third-party pricing software (such as RealPage) to coordinate residential rental prices. Targets "algorithmic" or "AI-enabled" rent price-fixing, where competing landlords feed data into a common service that recommends prices, indirectly coordinating rents across the market. Prohibits fixing, controlling, or maintaining rental pricing or terms for residential units, including through any service or product that involves price coordination.
City / local housing and credit decisions rules (12)
-
In effect
Santa Ana CA ban on algorithmic rent-setting software (anticompetitive devices)
Santa Ana, CA · Effective April 2, 2026 · Santa Ana, CA City Council ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting software (final passage March 3, 2026; effective ~April 2, 2026)
Santa Ana, California (Orange County) enacted an ordinance on March 3, 2026 banning algorithmic rent-setting software that uses nonpublic competitor data to set or recommend residential rents. The ordinance targets software that feeds landlords' nonpublic pricing data (real-time rents, renewal rates, occupancy levels) into AI models to recommend rent increases in a way that facilitates coordination among competing landlords, driving rents higher without explicit agreement. Landlords caught using banned software face fines of $1,000 per violation. Tenants can sue for injunctive relief, damages, or civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation, plus attorney's fees. The law does not restrict software that relies solely on publicly available data, historical trends, or tools used for affordable housing compliance. Santa Ana is Orange County's most populous city (pop. ~315,000) and one of California's densest cities; it has robust rent stabilization protections already in place. The ordinance makes Santa Ana one of roughly five cities nationwide (with SF, Berkeley, Portland, and Seattle) to have enacted such bans.
-
In effect
Minneapolis algorithmic rent ban (Ord. 2025-010, eff. Mar 1, 2026)
Minneapolis, MN · Effective March 1, 2026 · Minneapolis Ord. 2025-010 (File 2024-01399), adding § 244.2070 to City Code, eff. March 1, 2026
Minneapolis City Council adopted Ordinance 2025-010 amending Title 12, Chapter 244 of the City Code to add Section 244.2070, prohibiting residential landlords from using algorithmic devices that employ nonpublic competitor data to recommend rental pricing or vacancy strategies. Effective March 1, 2026. A White House report estimated Twin Cities renters paid on average $324 more per unit annually due to pricing algorithms, with the national total exceeding $3.8 billion. Private right of action; license revocation possible for landlord violations.
-
In effect
Seattle algorithmic rent-fixing ban (Ord. 127241 / SMC 7.34, July 2025)
Seattle, WA · Effective July 31, 2025 · Seattle Ord. 127241 / CB 121000, signed July 1, 2025, eff. July 31, 2025; codified SMC Chapter 7.34
Seattle City Council passed CB 121000 on June 24, 2025 (Mayor signed July 1, 2025; effective July 31, 2025), creating SMC Chapter 7.34 to prohibit algorithmic rent-fixing. The ordinance bans landlords from using software or data services that pool pricing recommendations based on nonpublic competitor data — targeting RealPage-style pricing coordination. Publicly available rent estimates and listings remain permitted. Penalties reach $7,500 per violation, and each affected rental unit counts separately. Tenants can also sue for actual damages plus attorneys' fees.
-
In effect
Hoboken Algorithmic Rent-Fixing Ban
Hoboken, NJ · Effective July 9, 2025 · Hoboken City Council ordinance banning algorithmic rent-fixing, adopted July 9, 2025
Hoboken, NJ banned landlords from using algorithmic rent-fixing software. The ordinance passed unanimously (8-0) on July 9, 2025 and took effect immediately. It defines 'price fixing using algorithmic pricing' as the use of software or algorithms that collect nonpublic competitor data to coordinate rental pricing across multiple properties. Violations carry fines up to $20,000 per offense, up to 90 days imprisonment, or up to 90 days of community service. All residential rental properties are covered, excluding medical/long-term care and detention facilities.
-
In effect
San Diego algorithmic rent price-fixing ban (Ord. O-21955, May 2025)
San Diego, CA · Effective June 12, 2025 · San Diego Ord. O-21955, adopted May 13, 2025, eff. June 12, 2025
San Diego City Council adopted Ordinance O-21955 on May 13, 2025 (effective June 12, 2025), prohibiting landlords from using algorithmic tools that rely on nonpublic competitor data — current lease rates, occupancy levels, and vacancy strategies from competing properties — to recommend residential rent prices. Public data tools and affordable-housing compliance software are permitted. Penalties reach $1,000 per violation per month per property. Tenants can sue for damages and recover attorney's fees. Before the ban, an estimated 22 percent of San Diego County landlords reported using tools such as RealPage.
-
Proposed / pending
NYC AI rental listing disclosure proposal (Mamdani, 2026)
New York City, NY · NYC Mayor Mamdani AI rental listing disclosure proposal, introduced July 2026
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposed a rule in July 2026 requiring landlords and rental listing platforms to disclose when artificial intelligence tools are used to generate, rank, or filter rental listings. The proposal is part of a broader Mamdani housing-affordability agenda and reflects growing concern about AI tools that use algorithmic pricing and screening to affect housing access. The proposal was pending City Council introduction as of the date of this entry.
-
In effect
Santa Monica Algorithmic Rent-Setting Ban
Santa Monica, CA · Effective June 24, 2025 · Santa Monica City Council ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting software, adopted approx. June 24, 2025
Santa Monica, CA banned the sale and use of algorithmic rent-setting software that relies on nonpublic competitor data to coordinate rental pricing. Adopted around June 24, 2025, the ordinance provides tenants with an affirmative defense in eviction proceedings where such software was used to set rent, and allows civil enforcement by renters or the city. The ordinance was motivated in part by housing affordability concerns following the January 2025 LA wildfires. It targets RealPage YieldStar-type systems that aggregate competitor pricing data to raise rents across multiple properties.
-
Proposed / pending
Cambridge MA algorithmic rent-setting ban (policy order, Jun. 2026)
Cambridge, MA · Cambridge, MA City Council unanimous policy order (late June 2026) directing draft ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting (Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler)
The Cambridge, Massachusetts City Council voted unanimously in late June 2026 on a policy order directing city staff to draft an ordinance banning algorithmic rent-setting — software (such as RealPage-style tools) that landlords use to coordinate and set rents. The order, led by Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, follows municipal bans in Berkeley, CA and Providence, RI. A policy order directs drafting; the ban itself is not yet law, so this is indexed as proposed until an ordinance is drafted and enacted.
-
Proposed / pending
Limit facial recognition in residential buildings (Ban The Scan)
New York City · NYC Int 0428-2026
Would prohibit owners of multiple dwellings from installing or using biometric recognition systems that identify tenants or their guests. Modifies existing smart-access regulations and adds new restrictions on facial recognition and related biometric technologies in residential settings.
-
Proposed / pending
DC SDAA (B24-0558)
Washington, DC · B24-0558 (DC Council, 2021; reintroduced)
DC's Stop Discrimination by Algorithms Act would bar algorithmic decision-making that discriminates in housing, employment, education, credit, healthcare, insurance. Mandates annual bias audits, consumer notice, disclosure; private right of action with civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Pending across DC Council sessions since 2021.
-
Proposed / pending
DC SDAA (B25-0114)
Washington, DC · D.C. Council B25-0114 (proposed)
A DC Council bill that would ban using algorithms to discriminate based on race, sex, age, or disability in important life decisions such as employment, housing, credit, insurance, and education, and would require notice and audits.
-
Expired
DC Algorithm Bill (not enacted)
Washington, DC · D.C. Council B24-0558 (2021); B25-0114 (2023) (not enacted)
A proposed DC law that would ban businesses from using algorithms that discriminate based on protected traits in decisions about jobs, housing, credit, insurance, and education, and would require annual bias audits and consumer disclosures. Despite multiple introductions since 2021, it has never been enacted — DC residents rely on federal protections.