If you’re renting a house or apartment, you’re probably all too familiar with rent tech : online systems and apps for searching and applying for properties, paying rent and logging maintenance requests.
Author
- Samantha Floreani
PhD Candidate, Monash University
These platforms collect, use and circulate an enormous amount of data from and about renters. Renters generally have no choice but to use the platforms, and little say over the data they are required to provide.
Many of these platforms now also incorporate artificial intelligence (AI) to automate communications with renters and optimise property manager workflows. In my interviews with renters, many have told me they find using rent tech systems “dehumanising”.
I am investigating the impact of rent tech for my PhD research, which has also helped inform a new report from the non-profit Consumer Policy Research Centre. Surveying rent tech platforms across Australia, we found a grim situation: while protections for renters are improving in Victoria after recent changes to the law, the same can’t be said elsewhere.
Deceptive designs and dubious claims
The report notes widespread use of deceptive or manipulative design tactics (known as ” dark patterns “) by rent tech platforms.
We found several attempts to trick renters into handing over more data than necessary. Even where it’s not mandatory to provide certain pieces of information, renters are sometimes pushed and nudged to give it or shamed when they don’t.
This aligns with a landmark ruling from the privacy commissioner in April. The commissioner found that one rental application platform, 2Apply, was collecting too much personal information from renters, and doing so in an unfair way.
The commissioner looked at the platform’s “online choice architecture”: its design, structure and way of presenting information. The commissioner found it was unfairly pressuring renters into handing over more information than they would otherwise.
Though the commissioner only investigated 2Apply, she called for other rent tech providers to improve their practices. The findings in our new report suggest this has not happened.
Our research also found one platform using a dubious “personality questionnaire” as part of the rental application process, which claimed to screen applicants based on “agreeableness”. Some platforms also compelled renters to pay for unnecessary add-ons, such as joining a rewards program with questionable value, or for data storage programs.
Rent tech practices are improving in Victoria, but lagging in other states
In March, Victoria introduced new laws to limit the questions that can be asked on a rental application form. The laws also ban charging renters third-party fees for things like rent payment or ID checks.
We examined platforms before and after these new rules came into effect. We found the changes to Victorian rental laws led to an improvement in practices across many of the major platforms. Paid ID verification has been removed, and the application process has become streamlined, with fewer invasive or unnecessary questions.
However, when we checked the application processes in other states, the improvements disappeared. Outside of Victoria, the same old data-harvesting practices continue.
Despite the improvements in Victoria, we found rent tech platforms may be circumventing the new laws by asking for additional personal information outside the rental application process. This suggests rent tech companies may continue invasive data practices unless something makes them stop, such as stronger Australia-wide regulations.
No choice
Renters have very little choice over which rent tech platforms they use, and minimal control over what happens to the data they are required to provide.
Opting out is becoming increasingly difficult. Online rental listings often provide no alternative but to use an online platform to apply for a property.
This is made worse by the significant imbalance of power in the private rental sector and the ongoing rental crisis. Renters are presently particularly vulnerable to unfair practices.
In 2023, consumer advocacy organisation CHOICE found 41% of renters were pressured to use a rent tech platform. Renters also can’t simply decide to use a different platform to the ones implemented by real estate agencies.
Renters are also not provided clear information about what is happening with their data. While reviewing privacy policies and terms and conditions for the new report, I found they are mostly vague and often contradictory. They use broad, technical language and terminology that makes it incredibly hard to understand what is happening with renter data.
Some of the privacy policies list concerning uses of personal information that renters might not reasonably expect, like sharing renter data with debt collectors and financial product providers.
Need for further improvements
Housing is a basic necessity. Renters have little choice but to engage with rent tech, regardless of unfair practices or privacy concerns.
What can be done to improve the situation for renters? One place to start would be some guidance for the real estate industry with regards to best practices when choosing and implementing rent tech. The peak body for real estate professionals would be well placed to do this work.
However, the most meaningful improvement will require more changes to Australian privacy law and state-based rental laws, as well as rigorous enforcement.
Industry experts interviewed for the new report agreed that real estate agencies – including those that operate as small businesses – ought to be required to comply with privacy laws.
Currently, small businesses are exempt from the Privacy Act. Since July, some aspects of real estate operations now have some privacy obligations under new anti-money-laundering rules, but this does not apply to rental property management . This means that privacy protections for the renting part of real estate businesses remain patchy across Australia.
The federal government is currently proposing reforms to the Privacy Act . Protections that benefit renters across Australia shouldn’t be left out.
