Minnesota Tenant Screening Laws: The Landlord and Applicant Guide
FCRA Consent · Adverse Action Notices · Section 504B.173 Screening-Fee Rule · Minnesota Human Rights Act · Minneapolis and St. Paul Ordinances
Minnesota tenant screening sits at the crossroads of two bodies of law: the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, which governs how a consumer report may be pulled and used everywhere in the country, and Minnesota’s own rules under Minnesota Statutes Section 504B.173 and Section 504B.241, which add a specific screening-fee disclosure, a refund duty, a fourteen-day rejection notice, and report-correction rights. On top of the statewide floor sit two of the strictest local renter-screening ordinances in the nation, in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The Minnesota landlords who screen properly almost never face a lawsuit. The ones who skip the disclosure, the consent form, or the adverse action notice pay for that shortcut, and the mandatory attorney-fee provisions are what make the bill so large.
This guide walks the whole framework in plain English: the five federal Fair Credit Reporting Act requirements every landlord must meet, Minnesota’s actual-cost screening-fee rule and pre-fee disclosure under Section 504B.173, the applicant’s report-correction rights under Section 504B.241, fair-housing protection under the federal Fair Housing Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the accurate source-of-income and Section 8 analysis, the Minneapolis and St. Paul renter-screening ordinances, HUD’s individualized-assessment standard for criminal history, the rights every applicant holds, a day-by-day screening workflow, a compliance playbook, real scenarios, and a Minnesota-specific set of frequently asked questions.
Because Minnesota’s biggest cities add protections on top of the statewide baseline, the safest posture for a landlord is the written pre-fee disclosure, written consent, consistent written criteria, and proper adverse action notices every single time, and the strongest position for an applicant is to know exactly which rights the law confers. Treat every figure here as a starting point and verify the current statute and local ordinance before you screen, charge a fee, or dispute a decision.
Minnesota Tenant Screening at a Glance
Primary Authority
FCRA — fifteen U.S.C. section 1681 & Fair Housing Act
Minnesota Authority
Section 504B.173 fee rule & Section 504B.241 report rights
Screening Fee Rule
Actual cost only — no dollar cap, disclose & refund
Local Ordinances
Minneapolis & St. Paul renter-screening limits
The FCRA Framework in Minnesota
The Fair Credit Reporting Act, codified at fifteen U.S.C. section 1681, is the federal statute that governs tenant screening nationwide, and a Minnesota landlord must comply with it regardless of any state-law differences, then add Minnesota’s own rules under Section 504B.173 and Section 504B.241. Getting both layers right prevents almost all screening-related liability. Five federal requirements sit at the core, and each one is load-bearing.
Permissible Purpose
A landlord has a permissible purpose under Fair Credit Reporting Act section 604(a) to pull a consumer report on a rental applicant. That is the threshold right to obtain the report at all, but it does not eliminate any of the other requirements — it only opens the door to a report the landlord must then handle correctly.
Written Consent
The applicant must provide written consent before the landlord obtains a consumer report. The consent must be clear and conspicuous, and the best practice is a standalone consent form rather than a clause buried in the rental application. In Minnesota, the landlord must also give the applicant the separate written pre-fee disclosure required by Section 504B.173 — the screening service’s name, address, and telephone number, and the decision criteria — before charging a screening fee.
Consistent Criteria
Written screening criteria must be applied consistently to every applicant. Inconsistency creates both Fair Credit Reporting Act disparate-treatment exposure and Fair Housing Act liability, because bending the rule for one applicant and not another is powerful evidence of discrimination even where none was intended. Minnesota adds a practical reason to write the criteria down: the Section 504B.173 rejection notice must identify the criteria the applicant failed to meet.
Pre-Adverse Action Notice
Before finalizing a rejection based even in part on a report, the landlord must send a pre-adverse action notice that includes a copy of the report and the Fair Credit Reporting Act summary of rights, and then wait a reasonable period — commonly at least five business days — so the applicant can dispute an error before the decision becomes final.
Adverse Action Notice
When the rejection becomes final, the landlord must send an adverse action notice identifying the consumer reporting agency, explaining the applicant’s dispute rights, and including the summary of rights. This step is not optional, and it applies to any adverse action — not only an outright denial, but also a higher deposit or an added condition driven by the report. In Minnesota, pair it with the fourteen-day rejection notice that Section 504B.173 separately requires.
FCRA sections 616 and 617 penalties
The Fair Credit Reporting Act imposes serious penalties. A willful violation carries statutory damages of one hundred to one thousand dollars per violation, actual damages, and punitive damages; a negligent violation carries actual damages; and both carry mandatory attorney fees. Extreme willful conduct can even be treated as a federal offense. The mandatory attorney-fee provision is precisely what makes Fair Credit Reporting Act class actions so aggressive, because the cost of a single dropped step shifts to the landlord.
Takeaway
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act requires permissible purpose, written consent, consistent criteria, a pre-adverse action notice, and a final adverse action notice. A Minnesota landlord who does all five — consent, consistency, notice — and layers on the Section 504B.173 disclosure essentially eliminates screening liability. The framework is simple; the penalty for skipping a step, driven by mandatory attorney fees, is comprehensive.
Minnesota’s Screening-Fee Rule: Section 504B.173
How much can a landlord charge to screen a tenant in Minnesota?
Minnesota does not put a fixed dollar cap on the applicant screening fee — any guide that claims a hard ceiling such as forty dollars is wrong. Under Minnesota Statutes Section 504B.173, the fee is instead tied to the landlord’s actual out-of-pocket cost of obtaining the screening, and the statute enforces that limit through disclosure, refund, and notice duties rather than a number. In practice most Minnesota landlords charge close to what the screening company charges them, commonly in the range of thirty to fifty dollars, but the legal ceiling is the real cost, not a set figure. The statute is published at Minnesota Statutes Section 504B.173.
The pre-fee disclosure
Before it accepts any screening fee, the landlord must give the applicant a written notice stating the name, address, and telephone number of the tenant screening service the landlord will use and the criteria on which the decision to rent will be based. This up-front disclosure is the hinge of the whole statute: because the criteria are on the table before money changes hands, the applicant can measure any later denial against them, and the landlord who denies for an undisclosed reason must refund the fee.
When the fee must be refunded
Section 504B.173 requires the landlord to return the fee, or the unused portion of it, in three situations:
- The applicant is rejected for any reason not listed in the disclosed criteria.
- A prior applicant is offered the unit and agrees to enter into a rental agreement, so this applicant is never actually screened.
- The landlord does not perform the reference check or does not obtain the credit or tenant screening report — the amount not actually used for those purposes must be returned.
The fourteen-day rejection notice and the penalties
When the landlord rejects an application, Section 504B.173 requires a notice to the applicant within fourteen days that identifies the criteria the applicant failed to meet. A landlord who violates the section is liable to the applicant for the screening fee plus a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars, civil filing costs, and reasonable attorney fees. The statute cuts both ways: an applicant who provides materially false information faces a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars plus costs and fees.
The fee is cost-based, disclosed, and refundable — not capped at a number
Charging more than the actual screening cost, collecting a fee without first disclosing the screening service and criteria, failing to refund when you reject for an undisclosed reason or never run the report, or missing the fourteen-day rejection notice are all violations of Minnesota Statutes Section 504B.173. Keep the fee tied to the real report cost, hand over the written disclosure first, refund promptly, and send the fourteen-day notice identifying the failed criteria. Do not rely on a phantom dollar cap that the statute does not contain.
Takeaway
Minnesota’s Section 504B.173 sets no dollar cap on the applicant screening fee; it limits the fee to actual cost and enforces that through a written pre-fee disclosure of the screening service and criteria, a refund when the applicant is rejected for an undisclosed reason or the report is never run, and a fourteen-day rejection notice identifying the failed criteria. Violations cost the fee plus up to one hundred dollars, filing costs, and attorney fees.
Your Screening-Report Rights: Section 504B.241
Can a Minnesota applicant see and correct their screening report?
Yes. Minnesota Statutes Section 504B.241 governs residential tenant reports and gives an applicant the right to obtain the nature and substance of the information a tenant screening service holds on them, together with the sources of that information, on proper identification. The disclosure is free if the report was used within the past thirty days to deny the rental or to increase the security deposit or rent; otherwise the service may charge a reasonable fee. If the applicant disputes the accuracy of anything, the service must reinvestigate, and information found to be inaccurate or that can no longer be verified must be deleted, with prior recipients notified. This state right runs alongside the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act dispute process, so a Minnesota applicant has two overlapping avenues to fix a bad report. The statute is published at Minnesota Statutes Section 504B.241.
Takeaway
Section 504B.241 lets a Minnesota applicant see the tenant screening file and its sources, free when the report was used in the last thirty days to deny the rental or raise the deposit or rent, and forces the service to reinvestigate and delete inaccurate or unverifiable information. It is the state backstop to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act dispute right.
Criminal-Record Considerations in Minnesota
Can a Minnesota landlord reject an applicant for a criminal record?
Minnesota has no statewide Fair Chance or ban-the-box housing law, so a landlord may consider criminal history, but the consideration must be individualized — not a blanket rule that automatically rejects any applicant with any record. Federal HUD guidance issued in 2016 holds that a blanket refusal to rent to anyone with any record can violate the Fair Housing Act as disparate-impact discrimination, and HUD guidance also bars a decision based solely on an arrest that never led to a conviction. Two Minnesota cities go much further: the Minneapolis and St. Paul renter-screening ordinances impose hard look-back limits, covered in the next section, so the property’s city can control the answer.
The Five Assessment Factors
- Nature and severity of the offense. A decades-old shoplifting conviction differs materially from a recent violent crime or manufacturing charge.
- Time since the conviction. More recent offenses carry more predictive weight; very old convictions may have little probative value.
- Evidence of rehabilitation. Consistent employment, completed parole or probation, continuing education, or recovery documentation can rebut the presumption of risk.
- Relevance to tenancy. The offense should bear on the specific risk — violent or property crimes bear more directly than a traffic or minor drug-possession offense might.
- Consistent application. Apply the same analysis to every applicant with any criminal history; selectivity creates disparate-treatment exposure.
The blanket-ban problem
A policy of “we don’t rent to anyone with any conviction” is legally indefensible under HUD’s 2016 guidance. Because criminal records disparately affect Black and Hispanic applicants, a blanket ban fails the Fair Housing Act disparate-impact test unless the landlord can show it is substantially related to preventing a specific tenancy risk — a difficult showing. In Minneapolis and St. Paul, a blanket ban is not merely risky under federal law; it is barred outright by the local ordinance’s look-back limits. Work through the individualized factors and document the analysis. Our guide to criminal history in tenant screening covers the analysis in depth.
Takeaway
Minnesota has no statewide criminal-screening ban, so criminal history may be considered only through an individualized assessment weighing the nature and age of the offense, rehabilitation, relevance, and consistency — never a blanket ban, which fails HUD’s disparate-impact standard. In Minneapolis and St. Paul, strict local look-back limits control, so check the property’s city.
Local Renter-Screening Ordinances: Minneapolis and St. Paul
What are the Minneapolis renter-screening ordinance rules?
Minneapolis enacted one of the strictest renter-screening ordinances in the country, effective June 1, 2020 for larger owners and December 1, 2020 for owners of fifteen or fewer rental units. It gives a covered landlord two paths, and the landlord must pick one for each applicant. Under the inclusive screening criteria safe harbor, the landlord agrees to fixed limits and need not do more; under the individualized assessment path, the landlord may look more broadly but must weigh the applicant’s own evidence.
| Screening item | Minneapolis inclusive-criteria limit |
|---|---|
| Misdemeanor convictions | May not reject based on a misdemeanor conviction older than three years |
| Felony convictions | May not reject based on a felony conviction older than seven years |
| Listed serious crimes | Certain serious offenses — such as first-degree arson, assault, manslaughter, kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct, murder, and aggravated robbery — may not be used if the sentencing date is older than ten years |
| Eviction records | May not reject based on an eviction judgment older than three years, a settled eviction older than one year, or a dismissed eviction |
| Credit | Insufficient credit history or the absence of a credit score may not be the sole basis for denial; the ordinance limits rigid score cutoffs |
| Security deposit | Capped at one month’s rent for covered rentals |
The individualized-assessment alternative
A Minneapolis landlord who wants to look beyond the inclusive criteria may instead conduct an individualized assessment. That path is not a loophole: the landlord must consider supplemental evidence the applicant provides — such as proof of rehabilitation, a good rental record since the offense, or an explanation of a dismissed case — and must be able to justify or negate the relevance of the negative information to the specific tenancy. It mirrors the HUD standard but is enforceable at the city level.
St. Paul’s SAFE Housing ordinance
St. Paul adopted its own SAFE Housing Saint Paul renter-protection package, effective in 2020, which includes tenant screening guidelines, advance notice of the screening criteria, a security-deposit limit, and just-cause and advance-notice-of-sale provisions. The screening limits parallel the Minneapolis approach, so a landlord operating in either city must screen to the local rule, not merely the statewide floor.
The property’s city can decide the case
Outside Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota’s statewide rules and the HUD individualized-assessment standard control criminal and eviction screening. Inside those cities, the local ordinance adds hard look-back limits and a one-month deposit cap that override a landlord’s usual criteria. Because these ordinances have been amended and litigated, confirm the current ordinance text for the property’s exact address before you build your screening criteria.
Takeaway
Minneapolis and St. Paul renter-screening ordinances bar rejecting an applicant on misdemeanors older than three years, felonies older than seven years, listed serious crimes older than ten years, or old or dismissed evictions, limit credit-only denials, and cap the security deposit at one month’s rent — or the landlord may use an individualized assessment that weighs the applicant’s own evidence. The property’s city controls.
Source-of-Income Protection and Section 8 in Minnesota
Can a Minnesota landlord refuse a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher holder?
This is the most misunderstood point in Minnesota tenant screening, and the honest answer is it depends on the city. The Minnesota Human Rights Act, at Section 363A.09, makes status with regard to public assistance a protected class statewide. But Minnesota appellate courts have drawn a narrow line: in Edwards versus Hopkins Plaza, the court held that a landlord’s refusal to participate in the voluntary Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is not, by itself, discrimination based on status with regard to public assistance, reasoning that the Act protects a person’s status rather than compelling a landlord into a voluntary program, and that Minnesota’s statute protects “status with regard to public assistance” rather than “lawful source of income.”
A statewide bill that would have banned source-of-income discrimination outright — expressly requiring landlords to accept Housing Choice Vouchers — was introduced but died in the 2024 legislative session. So do not assume a blanket statewide Section 8 mandate. The clear voucher-acceptance requirements are local: Minneapolis, under a 2017 ordinance that the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld in the Fletcher Properties case against takings and preemption challenges, and St. Paul both prohibit refusing an applicant, advertising a no-voucher policy, or steering, because of a Housing Choice Voucher or similar public-assistance program.
Everywhere in Minnesota, a landlord may still screen a voucher holder on neutral, consistent criteria — credit, income relative to the tenant’s own share of rent, and rental history — exactly as any other applicant. What the local ordinances forbid is treating the voucher itself as the disqualifier. A common and costly mistake is calculating an income multiplier against the full contract rent rather than the tenant’s out-of-pocket share, which can screen out voucher holders as a group.
Screen the applicant, not the voucher — and know your city
Statewide, refusing a Housing Choice Voucher alone has not been treated as a Minnesota Human Rights Act violation, but in Minneapolis and St. Paul a no-voucher policy is unlawful under local ordinance. Wherever the property sits, apply standard, consistent criteria to the applicant, measure income against the portion of rent the tenant actually pays rather than the full rent, and confirm the current local rule before advertising or applying any voucher policy.
Takeaway
The Minnesota Human Rights Act protects status with regard to public assistance, but under Edwards versus Hopkins Plaza that has not, by itself, compelled statewide Section 8 acceptance, and a 2024 statewide ban died. The firm voucher mandates are local — Minneapolis, upheld by the Minnesota Supreme Court, and St. Paul. Screen the applicant on neutral criteria; never treat the voucher as the reason.
Fair Housing Compliance in Minnesota
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on seven federally protected classes, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act adds a longer list. Screening criteria must be facially neutral, predictive of tenancy success, and consistently applied, and they must not produce a disparate impact on any protected class — a criterion that looks neutral but disproportionately excludes a protected group can still be unlawful.
Federal Protected Classes
The Fair Housing Act protects race and color, national origin, religion, sex including gender identity and sexual orientation under current HUD guidance, familial status meaning the presence of children, and disability whether mental or physical. In many jurisdictions source of income is protected as well, and in Minnesota that protection turns on the public-assistance-status rule and the local ordinances discussed above.
Minnesota’s Expanded Protections
The Minnesota Human Rights Act, at Section 363A.09, adds protected characteristics beyond the federal seven, including creed, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation, gender identity, and, in housing, age. A screening criterion that passes muster elsewhere can still create liability in Minnesota because the protected list is longer.
Common Minnesota Fair-Housing Traps
- Blanket criminal-history bans that auto-reject any record, which violate the disparate-impact doctrine and, in Minneapolis and St. Paul, the local ordinance.
- Rigid credit-score cutoffs applied with no individualized review of the applicant’s full picture.
- Income multipliers that disproportionately exclude single parents, implicating familial status.
- No-voucher policies in Minneapolis and St. Paul, which are unlawful under those cities’ ordinances.
- Denying reasonable accommodations to applicants with a disability.
- Inconsistent application of criteria across applicants of different protected classes.
Takeaway
Screening criteria must be neutral, predictive, and consistently applied, and must avoid disparate impact. The Minnesota Human Rights Act protects a longer list than the seven federal classes, including status with regard to public assistance, so blanket criminal bans, rigid cutoffs, exclusionary income rules, and city no-voucher policies all invite liability.
Applicant Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
Minnesota applicants have strong federal rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, supplemented by state-level protection under Section 504B.173 and Section 504B.241. Understanding these rights matters for applicants who want to contest an inaccurate report and for landlords who want to avoid liability. Applicants can learn to spot problems early using our guide to red flags in a rental application, which cuts both ways.
The Five Core Rights
- Right to consent disclosure. The landlord must disclose that a consumer report will be obtained and get written consent before pulling it; the applicant may decline and withdraw.
- Right to an adverse action notice. If the report causes any adverse action — rejection, a higher deposit, or added requirements — the applicant is owed a notice identifying the consumer reporting agency and explaining dispute rights, and, in Minnesota, a fourteen-day rejection notice identifying the failed criteria.
- Right to a free copy of the report. When an adverse action is taken, the applicant may obtain a free copy of the report from the agency, generally within sixty days, and Minnesota adds a free disclosure under Section 504B.241 when the report was used in the last thirty days.
- Right to dispute inaccuracies. The applicant may dispute inaccurate information with the agency, which must investigate, generally within thirty days, and correct or remove anything it cannot substantiate.
- Right to sue for violations. The Fair Credit Reporting Act authorizes private lawsuits for willful or negligent violations, with actual, statutory, and punitive damages and mandatory attorney fees.
Takeaway
Every Minnesota applicant has the right to consent disclosure, an adverse action notice, a free copy of the report, a dispute investigation, and a private lawsuit for violations, plus Minnesota’s own fourteen-day rejection notice and Section 504B.241 report-correction rights. These are the backstop against an inaccurate or improperly used screening report.
The Minnesota Screening Workflow
A disciplined, day-by-day workflow is what turns the legal requirements into a repeatable process that consistently produces defensible decisions. The exact timing can flex, but the sequence — disclose, consent, report, decide, notice — should not. A fuller walkthrough of each stage lives in our how to screen a tenant step-by-step guide, and the underlying paperwork is covered in our rental application guide for landlords.
| Day | Stage | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Day zero | Application and disclosure | Standardized application, and the Section 504B.173 written disclosure of the screening service and criteria given before any fee is collected. |
| Day one | Consent form | Signed Fair Credit Reporting Act consent — standalone, clear, and conspicuous. |
| Day two | Run report | Order through an FCRA-compliant consumer reporting agency and review it against the written criteria and any Minneapolis or St. Paul look-back limits. |
| Day three | Decision | Apply the consistent criteria; if the report drives an adverse decision, send the pre-adverse action notice. |
| Day ten to fourteen | Final action | Approve and lease, or deliver the adverse action notice and the Section 504B.173 fourteen-day rejection notice identifying the failed criteria. |
Takeaway
Run screening as a fixed sequence — disclose, consent, report, decide, notice. Give the Section 504B.173 disclosure and any fee receipt up front, get standalone written consent, pull from an FCRA-compliant agency, apply the same criteria to everyone, respect the local look-back limits, and send both the adverse action notice and the fourteen-day rejection notice when a report drives the decision.
Compliant Versus Non-Compliant Screening
✓ Defensible Screening
- Section 504B.173 disclosure of the screening service and criteria before any fee.
- Standalone written consent signed before the report is pulled.
- Same criteria applied to every applicant consistently.
- FCRA-compliant agency with permissible-purpose verification.
- Local look-back limits honored for Minneapolis and St. Paul properties.
- Pre-adverse and adverse action notices with the report copy and summary of rights.
- Fourteen-day rejection notice identifying the failed criteria.
- Fee refunded when rejecting for an undisclosed reason or the report is not run.
✕ Liability Exposure
- Collecting a fee with no pre-fee disclosure of the service and criteria.
- Oral or implied consent for a credit check.
- A phantom dollar cap or an inflated fee above actual cost.
- Inconsistent criteria across applicants.
- Silent rejection with no adverse action or fourteen-day notice.
- Blanket criminal-record bans, unlawful in Minneapolis and St. Paul.
- No-voucher policy in a city that bars it.
- No refund of an unearned screening fee.
Common Minnesota Screening Scenarios
The rules become concrete when applied to real situations. Each of the following turns on the same handful of principles — the pre-fee disclosure, written consent, the adverse action and fourteen-day notices, consistent criteria, and the local look-back limits.
| Scenario | How the law treats it |
|---|---|
| Fee collected with no written disclosure of the screening service and criteria | Section 504B.173 violation — the disclosure must come before the fee |
| Applicant rejected for a reason not in the disclosed criteria, fee kept | Section 504B.173 violation — the fee must be refunded |
| Rejection after a credit check, no fourteen-day notice sent | Section 504B.173 and Fair Credit Reporting Act problem — both notices are mandatory |
| Minneapolis landlord denies for a six-year-old felony | Minneapolis ordinance violation — felonies older than seven years may not be used under the inclusive criteria; individualized assessment required to look further |
| No-Section-8 advertisement for a St. Paul rental | St. Paul ordinance violation — the voucher may not be the reason |
| Same credit and income ratio applied to everyone, income measured on the tenant’s share | Defensible screening — consistent, neutral criteria are the safest posture |
Screen Every Applicant the Compliant Way
The best defense against a screening claim is a clean, consistent process. Comprehensive credit, income, and eviction-history reports, run through an FCRA-compliant agency with proper consent and adverse action workflows, protect both your decision and your applicant’s rights.
The Minnesota Landlord Screening Compliance Playbook
Minnesota landlords who follow this playbook virtually never face a Fair Credit Reporting Act or fair-housing claim. The list is short, but every item is load-bearing. Build it into your standard operating procedure and the liability largely disappears.
Disclose the screening service and criteria before any fee
Give every applicant the Section 504B.173 written disclosure — the tenant screening service’s name, address, and telephone number and the decision criteria — before collecting a screening fee, keep the fee at actual cost, and refund it when you reject for an undisclosed reason or never run the report.
Get standalone written consent
Obtain written consent on a standalone form — never buried in the application — before pulling any consumer report. Retain the consent for at least five years.
Use an FCRA-compliant agency and apply criteria consistently
Order through an FCRA-compliant consumer reporting agency only, apply the written criteria identically to every applicant in the same posture, and never use information older than the Fair Credit Reporting Act or the local ordinance allows.
Assess criminal history individually and honor the local look-back limits
Never use a blanket criminal ban; work the HUD factors and document the analysis, and in Minneapolis and St. Paul screen to the inclusive-criteria limits or run a documented individualized assessment. Apply any voucher rule required by the city and measure income against the tenant’s own share of rent.
Handle adverse action correctly and send the fourteen-day notice
Send a pre-adverse action notice with the report copy and summary of rights, wait a reasonable period, then send the adverse action notice identifying the agency and the Section 504B.173 fourteen-day rejection notice identifying the failed criteria. Retain notices and proof of delivery, and never retaliate against an applicant who disputes a report.
The compliance payoff is zero exposure
A Minnesota landlord with a proper pre-fee disclosure, consistent written consent, consistent criteria, respect for the local look-back limits, and compliant adverse action procedures essentially eliminates class-action risk under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a discrimination claim under fair-housing law. The cost is a few extra forms and disciplined record-keeping; the legal protection is comprehensive. For the ranking framework behind who to approve, see our rental application guide for landlords.
Defensible Versus Unlawful: Common Scenarios
✓ Usually Defensible
- Disclosure before the fee. The screening service and criteria disclosed in writing before any screening fee is collected.
- Consistent neutral criteria. A written credit, income, and rental-history standard applied identically to every applicant.
- Individualized criminal review. Weighing the nature, age, and relevance of an offense against rehabilitation, within any local look-back limits.
- Proper notices. A pre-adverse then final adverse action notice plus the Section 504B.173 fourteen-day rejection notice.
✕ Likely Unlawful
- Fee before disclosure. Collecting a screening fee without the written disclosure of the service and criteria.
- Report on an oral okay. Pulling a consumer report with no signed, conspicuous consent form.
- Blanket criminal ban. Auto-rejecting any record with no individualized assessment, and, in Minneapolis or St. Paul, breaching the look-back limits.
- City no-voucher policy. Refusing a Housing Choice Voucher holder where the local ordinance bars it.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much can a landlord charge for a tenant screening fee in Minnesota?
Minnesota Statutes Section 504B.173 does not set a fixed dollar cap on the applicant screening fee, but it limits the fee to the landlord’s actual out-of-pocket cost of obtaining the screening. Before collecting any fee, the landlord must give the applicant a written notice stating the name, address, and telephone number of the tenant screening service the landlord will use and the criteria on which the rental decision will be based. If the landlord does not run the reference check or obtain the credit or tenant screening report, the unused portion of the fee must be returned. The figure many landlords charge tracks the report cost, commonly in the range of thirty to fifty dollars, but the legal ceiling is the actual cost, not a set number. Verify the current statute before charging.
Does Minnesota cap the rental application fee at forty dollars?
No. There is no forty-dollar statutory cap in Minnesota, and any guide that states one is incorrect. Minnesota Statutes Section 504B.173 ties the applicant screening fee to the landlord’s actual cost of screening rather than to a fixed maximum. The related duties are what the statute actually enforces: a written pre-fee disclosure of the screening service and the decision criteria, a refund of the fee when the landlord rejects the applicant for a reason not listed in that disclosure or when a prior applicant takes the unit or when the landlord never runs the report, and a fourteen-day rejection notice. Charging more than the true cost, skipping the disclosure, or keeping an unearned fee are the violations.
What must a Minnesota landlord disclose before charging a screening fee?
Under Minnesota Statutes Section 504B.173, before accepting an applicant screening fee the landlord must give the applicant a written notice that contains two things: the name, address, and telephone number of the tenant screening service the landlord will use, and the criteria on which the decision to rent will be based. This up-front disclosure is what makes the later refund and rejection rules enforceable, because the applicant can compare any denial against the criteria that were disclosed. A landlord who collects a fee without first providing this disclosure has violated the statute and is liable for the fee plus a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars, filing costs, and attorney fees.
When must a Minnesota landlord refund the screening fee?
Minnesota Statutes Section 504B.173 requires the landlord to return the applicant screening fee, or the unused portion of it, in three situations: when the landlord rejects the applicant for any reason not listed in the disclosed criteria; when a prior applicant is offered the unit and agrees to enter into a rental agreement; and when the landlord does not perform a personal reference check or does not obtain a consumer credit report or tenant screening report, in which case the amount not actually used for those purposes must be returned. The fee is tied to real screening cost, so a landlord who collects it but never screens must give it back.
How long does a Minnesota landlord have to notify an applicant of rejection?
Minnesota Statutes Section 504B.173 requires a landlord who rejects a rental application to notify the applicant within fourteen days of the rejection, and the notice must identify the criteria the applicant failed to meet. This is separate from, and in addition to, the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act adverse action notice that is required whenever a consumer report contributes to the denial. A landlord should send both: the fourteen-day Minnesota rejection notice identifying the failed criteria, and the federal adverse action notice naming the consumer reporting agency and explaining the applicant’s dispute rights.
Can a Minnesota landlord refuse a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher holder?
It depends on the city, and this is the most misunderstood point in Minnesota. The Minnesota Human Rights Act, at Section 363A.09, makes status with regard to public assistance a protected class statewide. However, Minnesota appellate courts have held, in Edwards versus Hopkins Plaza, that a landlord’s refusal to participate in the voluntary Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is not, by itself, discrimination based on status with regard to public assistance, because the Act protects a person’s status rather than compelling participation in a voluntary program. A statewide bill to ban source-of-income discrimination outright died in 2024. The clear voucher-acceptance mandates are local: Minneapolis, by a 2017 ordinance the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld in the Fletcher Properties case, and St. Paul both prohibit refusing an applicant because of a Housing Choice Voucher. Outside those cities, confirm the current local rule.
Can a Minnesota landlord reject an applicant based on a criminal record?
Minnesota has no statewide Fair Chance or ban-the-box housing law, so a landlord may consider criminal history, but only through an individualized assessment rather than a blanket ban. Federal HUD guidance issued in 2016 holds that automatically refusing anyone with any record can violate the Fair Housing Act as disparate-impact discrimination, because criminal records disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic applicants, and HUD guidance bars decisions based on an arrest that never led to a conviction. The landlord should weigh the nature and severity of the offense, how long ago it occurred, evidence of rehabilitation, and its relevance to tenancy. In Minneapolis and St. Paul, local renter-screening ordinances impose specific look-back limits that go well beyond the HUD standard, so the property’s city controls.
What are the Minneapolis renter-screening ordinance rules?
The Minneapolis renter-screening ordinance, effective June 1, 2020 for larger owners and December 1, 2020 for owners of fifteen or fewer units, gives a landlord two paths. Under the inclusive screening criteria safe harbor, the landlord may not reject an applicant based on a misdemeanor conviction older than three years, a felony conviction older than seven years, or certain listed serious crimes with a sentencing date older than ten years, nor on an eviction judgment older than three years, a settled eviction older than one year, or a dismissed eviction, and the security deposit is capped at one month’s rent. Under the individualized assessment path, the landlord may look more broadly but must consider supplemental evidence the applicant provides and justify or negate the relevance of any negative information. St. Paul’s SAFE Housing ordinance imposes comparable screening and deposit limits. Confirm the current ordinance for the address.
Does Minnesota require written consent before a tenant background check?
Yes, through federal law. The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, at section 604, requires the applicant’s written consent before a landlord may obtain a consumer report, which includes a credit, criminal, or eviction-history report from a screening company. The consent must be clear and conspicuous, and the best practice is a standalone consent form rather than a clause buried in the rental application. Minnesota layers its own pre-fee disclosure of the screening service and criteria under Section 504B.173 on top of that federal consent. Pulling a report on an oral okay alone is a Fair Credit Reporting Act violation that exposes the landlord to statutory and actual damages plus attorney fees.
What are the protected classes under Minnesota fair housing law?
All seven federal protected classes under the Fair Housing Act apply in Minnesota: race, color, religion, national origin, sex including sexual orientation and gender identity, familial status, and disability. The Minnesota Human Rights Act, at Section 363A.09, adds a longer list, including creed, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation, gender identity, and, in housing, age. Screening criteria must be facially neutral, predictive of tenancy success, applied consistently, and must not produce a disparate impact on any protected class. A criterion that looks neutral but disproportionately excludes a protected group can still be unlawful.
How far back can a Minnesota tenant screening report reach?
Under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, most negative items on a consumer report have a seven-year reporting window, while bankruptcies may be reported for ten years. Minnesota adds report-accuracy and correction rights under Section 504B.241, which lets an applicant see the information in a tenant screening file, get free disclosure if the report was used within the past thirty days to deny the rental or raise the deposit or rent, and require the screening service to reinvestigate and delete anything inaccurate or unverifiable. In Minneapolis and St. Paul, the local ordinances further limit how far back criminal and eviction records may be used in a screening decision, regardless of how far back the report itself reaches.
Can a Minnesota applicant see and correct their screening report?
Yes. Minnesota Statutes Section 504B.241 gives an applicant the right to obtain the nature and substance of the information a residential tenant screening service holds on them, along with the sources, on proper identification. The disclosure is free if the report was used within the past thirty days to deny the rental or to increase the security deposit or rent. If the applicant disputes the accuracy of anything, the service must reinvestigate, and information found to be inaccurate or that can no longer be verified must be deleted, with prior recipients notified. This state right runs alongside the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act dispute process.
Where can a Minnesotan file a fair housing complaint?
An applicant who believes a screening decision was discriminatory can file with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights at the state level, or with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development at the federal level. Both agencies investigate housing discrimination complaints, and there are filing deadlines, so a complaint should be made promptly. A tenant can also raise a fair-housing or Fair Credit Reporting Act violation as a claim or defense in court, where damages, civil penalties, and attorney fees may be available. Keep written records of the application, the disclosed criteria, and any communications.
What penalties apply for tenant screening violations in Minnesota?
The exposure is layered. Under Minnesota Statutes Section 504B.173, a landlord who violates the screening-fee rules is liable to the applicant for the screening fee plus a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars, civil filing costs, and reasonable attorney fees, while an applicant who supplies materially false information faces a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars plus costs and fees. Under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, a willful violation carries statutory damages of one hundred to one thousand dollars per violation plus actual and punitive damages, and both willful and negligent violations carry mandatory attorney fees. Under the Fair Housing Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, a discrimination finding can bring actual and punitive damages, civil penalties, and attorney fees.
What is the best way to screen tenants in Minnesota?
A defensible Minnesota screening process combines a standardized application, the Section 504B.173 written disclosure of the screening service and criteria before any fee is collected, a standalone written Fair Credit Reporting Act consent form, an FCRA-compliant consumer reporting agency, written criteria applied consistently, credit and income verification, rental-history and eviction checks, an individualized criminal-history assessment that respects any Minneapolis or St. Paul look-back limits, and both the fourteen-day Minnesota rejection notice and the federal pre-adverse and adverse action notices when a report drives a denial. Our how to screen a tenant step-by-step guide walks each stage in order. Verify the current statute before relying on any single figure here.
What should a Minnesota landlord know about security deposits when screening?
Screening and deposits connect because the landlord collects the deposit from the approved applicant. Minnesota has no statewide dollar cap on the deposit amount, but it does require the landlord to pay interest and return the deposit with a written statement within three weeks after the tenancy ends. Minneapolis and St. Paul cap the deposit at one month’s rent for covered rentals. Note also that requiring a higher deposit because of information in a screening report is itself an adverse action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, so it triggers the adverse action notice, not just an outright rejection. Review our Minnesota security deposit laws guide for compliant deposit handling.
FCRA-Compliant Minnesota Screening Without the Headaches
Get comprehensive credit, income, and eviction reports on every applicant — with automated consent, compliant adverse action workflows, and complete audit trails. Zero monthly fees; pay only per report.
Related Minnesota Guides and Resources
Published by Tenant Screening Background Check
Established 2004 · 20+ Years · All U.S. States & Territories · Statute-Based · Attorney-Reviewed
A Private Eye Reports™ service trusted by landlords, property managers, and attorneys.
