When CHOICE started investigating the third-party rental platform industry in 2023, we unearthed a hidden world of stressed-out renters being forced to use a technology that demands huge amounts of personal information.
When we surveyed 1000 renters, 41% said they felt pressured by their rental agent or landlord to use a RentTech platform such as Ignite, 2Apply, Snug, tApp or others.
Six out of 10 were uncomfortable with the amount and type of information being collected, and 29% decided not to use the platform to apply for this very reason.
RentTech constitutes a classic power imbalance, with finding a place to live at stake. The ultimatum imposed on renters is stark: give us the information we ask for or you can’t apply for a home.
Either [renters] hand over personal and private information, including ID documents and payslips, or risk housing precarity or even loss
Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind
Now the Australian Privacy Commissioner has taken action against 2Apply after a year-long review of its practices, which included asking prospective renters’ to reveal their gender, student status, citizenship status and visa expiry, as well as details of their previous rental history – information that goes well beyond what would be needed to assess the suitability of a tenant.
“Renters often lack real choice when making rental applications. Either they hand over personal and private information, including ID documents and payslips, or risk housing precarity or even loss,” says Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind.
“This not only places them at risk that their applications will not be considered fairly and equitably, but that their personal information may be compromised in a data breach or cyber-attack.”
The Privacy Commissioner took a novel approach in determining that 2Apply was violating applicants’ privacy, considering the “design, structure and way information is conveyed in the 2Apply form” as well as utilising the concept of “online choice architecture”, which is about how “the presentation and structure of choices presented to individuals can shape how they make decisions”.
2Apply was found to have been applying a variety of manipulative techniques in its rental applications, including:
“Confirmshaming” – the use of emotive language to make a user feel guilty or embarrassed for not taking an action that is beneficial to the information collector.
“Biased framing” – presenting choices in a way that emphasises their supposed benefits or disadvantages.
“Bundled consent” – requesting consent for personal information to be used for multiple purposes in a single request.
Can renters be forced to use a RentTech platform?
As CHOICE recently reported, tenancy laws in some states require that renters are able to access an alternative payment and contact method.
In New South Wales and Victoria, tenants must be provided options like EFT or Centrepay. In Queensland, renters must be given a “reasonably accessible” option to pay rent.
But in practice, renters are in no position to push back against agents or landlords who breach these rules, as many do.
The essence of the Privacy Commissioner ruling is that 2Apply, which is operated by InspectRealEstate, violated the Australian Privacy Principles by collecting excessive personal information “by unfair means”, meaning prospective tenants felt they had no choice but to provide it.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner – which includes the Privacy Commissioner – has the power to issue fines up to $66,000, but 2Apply only had to agree to discontinue its excessive information collection, without admitting any fault.
In her determination on the case, Ms Kind emphasised the need for other RentTech platforms to note the ruling and change their information-gathering practices accordingly.
Andy Kollmorgen is the Investigations Editor at CHOICE. He reports on a wide range of issues in the consumer marketplace, with a focus on financial harm to vulnerable people at the hands of corporations and businesses. Prior to CHOICE, Andy worked at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and at the Australian Financial Review along with a number of other news organisations. Andy is a former member of the NSW Fair Trading Advisory Council. He has a Bachelor of Arts in English from New York University. LinkedIn
Andy Kollmorgen is the Investigations Editor at CHOICE. He reports on a wide range of issues in the consumer marketplace, with a focus on financial harm to vulnerable people at the hands of corporations and businesses. Prior to CHOICE, Andy worked at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and at the Australian Financial Review along with a number of other news organisations. Andy is a former member of the NSW Fair Trading Advisory Council. He has a Bachelor of Arts in English from New York University. LinkedIn
For more than 60 years, CHOICE has been fighting the good fight for Australian consumers.
In the past year alone we've uncovered systemic issues with sunscreens, investigated shonky supermarket pricing, fought for stronger scam protections and helped make complex energy pricing fairer and clearer.
CHOICE is here to provide unbiased advice and independent testing in our world-class labs. We buy the products we test, just like you do, and our expert reviews are influence free. We’re here to help you choose smarter. Hopefully you’ll also save some money along the way.
Thanks to CHOICE, you’ll never be alone when a business treats you unfairly. You can support our work by joining or donating to our cause.
