A pet screening lawsuit against the platform PetScreening.com, and against landlords who require tenants to use it, generally rests on fair housing law: that forcing a tenant with a disability through a pet-oriented online portal to verify an assistance animal is an unlawful barrier to a reasonable accommodation. A 2025 Oregon settlement produced a roughly $5,000 payout from a landlord who demanded the platform’s use, and a separate case now before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals attacks the company’s sale of personal data collected from disabled tenants. Both are moving forward against a federal backdrop that shifted sharply in 2026, when HUD rescinded the emotional support animal guidance these claims had leaned on.
The Oregon Settlement
In the summer of 2025, the Fair Housing Council of Oregon settled a case against a landlord who had required a tenant to use PetScreening.com to verify an assistance animal for her disabled son. The tenant had already completed a traditional verification. During a later dispute, the landlord revoked permission and told her to re-verify through the PetScreening portal.1Fair Housing Council of Oregon. PetScreening.com: A Tool for Landlords or a Liability Risk?
The FHCO argued that forcing a person with a disability to use a specific third-party website to gain approval for an assistance animal was an “undue burden” that impeded equal access to housing. The landlord paid approximately $5,000, split between the tenant and the FHCO.1Fair Housing Council of Oregon. PetScreening.com: A Tool for Landlords or a Liability Risk? The dollar amount is modest. The precedent is not: a landlord who delegates assistance animal verification to PetScreening can be held liable for how that process plays out.
The Fourth Circuit Data Privacy Case
A separate lawsuit now before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals takes a different angle. The claim is that PetScreening.com sells personal data collected from users to third parties for advertising purposes, and that because tenants with disabilities are the ones compelled to hand over that data while non-disabled tenants face no equivalent demand, the data collection itself creates a discriminatory barrier.1Fair Housing Council of Oregon. PetScreening.com: A Tool for Landlords or a Liability Risk?
Public reporting on the parties and the procedural posture is limited. The theory itself is what matters: it links fair housing discrimination to data privacy in a way that could reach any tenant-facing screening platform, not just this one.
Why Fair Housing Groups Say the Platform Violates the Law
The Fair Housing Council of Oregon and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund both argue that requiring pet screening for assistance animals violates federal fair housing law. The premise is simple. Assistance animals are not pets, so rules and processes designed for pets cannot be applied to them.
Under that framework, several common practices draw objections:
- Housing providers cannot require tenants to use a specific form or follow a specific procedure to request a reasonable accommodation. Routing tenants through a third-party website adds a step non-disabled tenants never face.2Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund. Know Your Rights: Pet Screening and Assistance Animals
- PetScreening collects breed, size, weight, vaccination records, microchip numbers, and photos. According to DREDF and the FHCO, most of that information is not required under the Fair Housing Act for assistance animals, and demanding it is unlawful.1Fair Housing Council of Oregon. PetScreening.com: A Tool for Landlords or a Liability Risk?2Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund. Know Your Rights: Pet Screening and Assistance Animals
- Landlords cannot condition an accommodation on a tenant agreeing to liability waivers, mandatory arbitration, or other special terms that a third-party platform may bundle into its process.3Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund. Assistance Animals in Housing: Current Challenges
The FHCO also points to vicarious liability under 24 CFR 100.7(2)(b). A landlord can be held responsible for discriminatory practices carried out by their agents or the third-party services they require tenants to use, even without knowing the specific conduct. The FHCO’s recommendation to landlords is to keep a separate, individualized process for assistance animal requests rather than route them through PetScreening.1Fair Housing Council of Oregon. PetScreening.com: A Tool for Landlords or a Liability Risk?
HUD’s 2026 Rescission and What It Changes
On May 22, 2026, HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity formally rescinded its 2020 guidance on emotional support animals, along with the earlier 2013 notice that had been the working framework for over a decade.4Pets and Housing Initiative. ESAs Under Legal Scrutiny The withdrawal followed a February 2025 executive order from President Trump directing agencies to de-prioritize enforcement of regulations not grounded in the “best reading of a statute.”5Holland & Knight. HUD Rescinds Emotional Support Animal Guidance
Under the new enforcement standard, HUD will only recommend charges for failure to accommodate when an animal is individually trained to perform work or tasks related to a resident’s disability, aligning Fair Housing Act enforcement with the narrower ADA definition. Requests involving trained assistance animals are treated as “presumptively reasonable.” Requests for untrained emotional support animals no longer receive categorical federal protection.5Holland & Knight. HUD Rescinds Emotional Support Animal Guidance The withdrawn guidance had barred breed and size restrictions for ESAs and prohibited pet fees or deposits for any assistance animal. Without it, open ESA complaints are being individually reviewed under the new standard.4Pets and Housing Initiative. ESAs Under Legal Scrutiny
That shift matters for pet screening litigation because the arguments against the platform have leaned on the very guidance HUD just pulled. The core principle, that assistance animals cannot be funneled through pet-oriented procedures, fees, or information demands, still anchors the FHCO’s and DREDF’s positions, and it still carries weight in states with their own fair housing protections. The Oregon settlement rested on the undue-burden theory, which does not depend on HUD guidance alone. State and local laws providing broader protections remain in effect, and tenants can still file private lawsuits under the Fair Housing Act within two years.5Holland & Knight. HUD Rescinds Emotional Support Animal Guidance The Fourth Circuit data privacy case, meanwhile, raises claims that extend beyond the traditional accommodation framework and may not depend on the rescinded guidance at all.
What Tenants Told to Use PetScreening Can Do
PetScreening is embedded in more than seven million rental units.6Multifamily Executive. PetScreening Secures $80 Million in Series B Funding The company does not charge fees for processing assistance animal accommodation requests, though pet owners pay $25 to $30 annually to register household pets.7Volition Capital. PetScreening John Bradford Interview The company says its platform helps housing providers comply with the Fair Housing Act. Fair housing organizations directly contest that characterization when the platform is applied to assistance animals rather than ordinary pets.
For tenants with an assistance animal who are told to complete a PetScreening profile, DREDF’s recommended steps are to inform the landlord in writing that the animal is exempt from pet screening, provide educational resources about fair housing law, and file a complaint with a state civil rights agency if the landlord refuses to budge.2Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund. Know Your Rights: Pet Screening and Assistance Animals Whether those complaints will see the same federal backing they would have a year ago is now an open question, which is one reason state-level fair housing agencies and private Fair Housing Act suits have become the more consequential forum.