Oregon Tenant Screening Laws: The Landlord and Applicant Guide

Oregon 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 Oregon’s own rules under the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, chiefly Oregon Revised Statutes sections 90.295, 90.303, and 90.304, which cap the screening charge at actual cost, limit how criminal history may be used, and force a written statement of reasons for a denial. Oregon landlords who screen properly almost never face a lawsuit. The ones who overcharge, skip the consent form, or reject an applicant without the required 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, Oregon’s actual-cost screening-charge rule and one-fee-per-sixty-days limit under section 90.295, the criminal-history limits of section 90.303 and the individualized assessment that Senate Bill 291 added on January 1, 2022, the fourteen-day statement of reasons under section 90.304, source-of-income protection under section 659A.421, the Portland Fair Access In Renting ordinance and the Eugene ten-dollar cap, HUD’s individualized-assessment standard, the rights every applicant holds, a day-by-day screening workflow, a compliance playbook, real scenarios, and an Oregon-specific set of frequently asked questions.

Because Oregon layers strong state protections on top of the federal baseline, the safest posture for a landlord is written consent, consistent written criteria, a receipted and refundable fee, an individualized criminal review, and proper adverse action and denial 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 any city ordinance before you screen, charge a fee, or dispute a decision.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act, codified at fifteen U.S.C. section 1681, is the federal statute that governs tenant screening nationwide, and an Oregon landlord must comply with it regardless of any state-law differences, then add Oregon’s own rules under the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. 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 Oregon, section 90.295 adds its own duty to give the applicant a written notice of the screening charge, the screening criteria, and the process before any payment is accepted.

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.

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 Oregon, the separate section 90.304 statement of reasons rides alongside it.

How much can a landlord charge to screen an applicant in Oregon?

Unlike California, Oregon does not set a flat statewide dollar cap on a tenant screening charge, and you should not assume one exists. Instead, Oregon Revised Statutes section 90.295 uses an actual-cost model: the applicant screening charge may not be greater than the landlord’s average actual cost of screening applicants or the customary amount charged by tenant screening companies or consumer credit reporting agencies for a comparable level of screening. In practice that keeps most charges in the range of roughly thirty to sixty-five dollars, tied to what the report actually costs, but the number is not fixed by statute — it is fixed by the landlord’s real, documented cost. The statute is published at Oregon Revised Statutes section 90.295.

Three further duties ride with the charge. First, the landlord must give the applicant a receipt for the screening charge. Second, before accepting any payment, the landlord must give the applicant a written notice that states the amount of the charge, the screening or admission criteria, the process the landlord uses, the applicant’s right to dispute the accuracy of information, and related disclosures. Third, a landlord may require only a single applicant screening charge from a given applicant within any sixty-day period, regardless of how many units the landlord owns or manages, and must refund the charge if the unit is filled before the applicant is screened or if the applicant withdraws in writing before the landlord orders the screening. A landlord who collects a charge and neither screens nor refunds it is liable for statutory damages under section 90.295, which are twice the amount of the charge plus two hundred fifty dollars.

The single most important recent change to Oregon tenant screening is Senate Bill 291, passed in the 2021 legislative session and effective January 1, 2022. It is frequently — and wrongly — described as a 2019 law; the correct year is 2021, effective 2022. Senate Bill 291 amended sections 90.295, 90.303, and 90.304 of the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, tightening how criminal history may be used, expanding the disclosures a landlord must give with a screening charge, and codifying an individualized assessment before a criminal denial that mirrors the standard Portland had already adopted.

What Senate Bill 291 changed

• Individualized criminal assessment. A landlord may no longer apply a blanket criminal ban. Before denying an applicant on criminal-screening results, the landlord must weigh the nature and severity of the incidents, the number of incidents, the time that has elapsed, and the applicant’s age at the time.
• Supplemental evidence. The landlord must give the applicant an opportunity to submit supplemental evidence to explain, justify, or negate the relevance of potentially negative information before the denial is final.
• Expanded fee disclosures. The written notice that must accompany a screening charge under section 90.295 now must also cover the landlord’s nondiscrimination policy, any appeal right, the rent and deposit amounts, and any renter’s-insurance requirement.
• Statement of reasons. Section 90.304 requires a written statement of the reasons for a denial within fourteen days, discussed in the criminal-record section below.

Can an Oregon landlord reject an applicant for a criminal record?

Yes, but only within tight limits. Oregon Revised Statutes section 90.303 tells a landlord what criminal history it may consider — a conviction for drug crimes other than marijuana, person crimes, sex offenses, financial-fraud crimes such as identity theft or forgery, and other crimes whose conduct would adversely affect the landlord’s or a tenant’s property or the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises. Just as importantly, the statute lists what a landlord may not consider at all:

• An arrest that did not result in a conviction, unless the charge is still pending.
• A conviction that has been expunged, set aside, or otherwise vacated.
• Conduct that is no longer illegal in Oregon, such as the possession or use of marijuana, and an applicant’s status as a medical-marijuana cardholder or patient.
• A pending charge if the applicant is participating in a diversion, conditional-discharge, or deferral-of-judgment program on that charge.

On top of those categorical limits, HUD’s 2016 guidance holds that a blanket criminal ban can violate the federal Fair Housing Act as disparate-impact discrimination, because criminal records disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic applicants. Since Senate Bill 291, Oregon law makes the individualized assessment mandatory, not merely advisable: the landlord must give the applicant a chance to submit supplemental evidence and must weigh the nature and severity of the offense, the number of incidents, the time since the conduct, and the applicant’s age at the time.

Must an Oregon landlord give a reason for the denial?

Yes. Section 90.304 requires a landlord who denies an application to deliver a written statement of one or more reasons for the denial within fourteen days. The statement may be a checklist of common reasons — insufficient rental history, a prior eviction, unacceptable criminal history, insufficient income, or negative credit information — but it must also name any tenant screening company or consumer credit reporting agency that supplied a report if that was not already disclosed, address any supplemental evidence the applicant submitted and why it was insufficient, and state any right to appeal. An applicant may recover one hundred dollars from a landlord who fails to comply.

Which Oregon cities add their own screening rules?

Oregon’s statewide rules are a floor, and two cities build significantly on top of them. If a property sits inside Portland or Eugene, the local ordinance controls in addition to the state statute, so identify the city before you screen.

One of the most consequential Oregon rules for screening is source-of-income protection. Under Oregon Revised Statutes section 659A.421, source of income is a protected class in housing. House Bill 2639, enacted in 2013, removed the earlier exclusion for federal rent assistance, so source of income now expressly includes the Housing Choice Voucher program, often called Section 8, along with other federal, state, and local housing assistance. As a result, an Oregon landlord may not refuse to rent, may not advertise a no-voucher policy, and may not apply harsher screening simply because an applicant intends to pay part of the rent with a voucher.

This does not strip the landlord of the right to screen. The landlord may still apply neutral, consistent criteria — credit, income relative to the tenant’s own share of rent, rental history — to a voucher holder exactly as to any other applicant. What the law forbids is treating the voucher itself as a disqualifier or steering voucher holders away. 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. The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries Civil Rights Division enforces this protection, and a complaint may be filed within one year of the act.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on seven federally protected classes, and Oregon’s civil-rights statute adds several more. 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 Oregon it is protected statewide.

Oregon’s Expanded Protections

Oregon Revised Statutes section 659A.421 adds source of income, marital status, and sexual orientation, which Oregon law defines to include gender identity. Separately, Oregon Revised Statutes section 90.449 protects an applicant or tenant who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking — a landlord may not deny an application solely because the applicant is or has been such a victim, which matters because a screening report can surface a protective order or a related eviction. Oregon’s list is among the broader ones in the country, which is why criteria that pass muster elsewhere can still create liability here.

Common Oregon Fair-Housing Traps

• Blanket criminal-history bans that auto-reject any record, now unlawful under both section 90.303 and the disparate-impact doctrine.
• Rigid credit-score cutoffs applied with no individualized review of the applicant’s full picture.
• Income multipliers measured against full contract rent, which disproportionately exclude voucher holders and single parents.
• No-Section-8 policies, which are unlawful under Oregon’s source-of-income protection.
• Denying an applicant for a domestic-violence-related record, contrary to section 90.449.
• Inconsistent application of criteria across applicants of different protected classes.

Oregon applicants have strong federal rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, supplemented by state-level protection under sections 90.295, 90.303, and 90.304. 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 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 the written screening notice and receipt. Under section 90.295 the applicant is owed a written notice of the charge, criteria, and process before paying, plus a receipt for the charge.
• 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.
• Right to a statement of reasons. Under section 90.304 a denied applicant is owed a written statement of the reasons within fourteen days, including the screening company named and the treatment of any supplemental evidence.
• Right to a free copy of the report and to dispute it. When an adverse action is taken, the applicant may obtain a free copy from the agency, generally within sixty days, and may dispute inaccuracies, which the agency must investigate, generally within thirty days.
• Right to sue for violations. The Fair Credit Reporting Act authorizes private lawsuits with actual, statutory, and punitive damages and mandatory attorney fees, and Oregon law adds its own statutory remedies.

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.

The rules become concrete when applied to real situations. Each of the following turns on the same handful of principles — written consent, the cost-based charge, consistent criteria, source-of-income protection, and the individualized criminal review. A deeper treatment of the criminal-history piece is in our guide to criminal history in tenant screening.

Oregon 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.

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.