March 9, 2026
Gina Rizk, Education and Outreach Coordinator for the Portland Metro and Salem Regions
The increased reliance on online interfaces in the housing industry has brought attention to new and interesting legal quandaries. One such tool that has risen to popularity among housing providers is PetScreening.com, a fully algorithmic interface that requires tenants to create a profile for their pet or assistance animal, assessing the “risk level” of the animal on a scale of 1-5, and even adjusting pet deposit costs based on the score.
Petscreening.com advertises itself as a way to “outsource their pet risk assessment”(1). Housing providers see this service as an avenue to prevent liability should they incorrectly screen an assistance animal request, but this claim is not necessarily supported by the law. According to 24 CFR 100.7(2)(b),
“A person is vicariously liable for a discriminatory housing practice by the person‘s agent or employee, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known of the conduct that resulted in a discriminatory housing practice, consistent with agency law.”
While not illegal, using third-party systems to screen reasonable accommodation requests ultimately presents additional liability risks, especially when PetScreening.com’s practices are compared to existing fair housing guidance. For example, the profile creation process in PetScreening.com requires tenants to input information such as the microchip numbers of their animals — details that are not legally required for verifying assistance animals. The website also boasts the ability to verify the medical legitimacy of assistance animals, which raises questions about PetScreening.com’s compliance with disability protections under the Fair Housing Act.
So, what kinds of liability risks do landlords face by using third-party systems to screen assistance animals?
To properly answer this question, a distinction needs to be made between a “pet” and an assistance animal. Pets are not a protected right under the Fair Housing Act. However, assistance animals, such as trained service animals, emotional support animals, and companion animals, are considered medically necessary tools used by people with disabilities to maintain access to housing. PetScreening boasts the ability to screen both pets and assistance animals, so the liability risks arise only when housing providers use this service to verify assistance animals rather than regular household pets.
According to the Fair Housing Act, housing providers are not permitted to impose additional barriers for people with disabilities to gain access to housing. When a landlord or property manager requires a tenant to use a specific online interface to gain access to an assistance animal, they may be imposing an undue burden on the person with the disability.
What are examples of liability cases?
In the summer of 2025, the Fair Housing Council of Oregon successfully settled a case against a landlord whose use of PetScreening.com resulted in an undue burden for a tenant with disabilities. In this case, a woman requested permission for an assistance animal for her disabled son when they moved to the property. The housing provider had approved and verified the request through traditional methods, but later, during an unrelated dispute, the housing provider revoked the tenant’s permission to have the animal. The housing provider insisted that the animal needed to be approved through PetScreening, even though the tenant had already verified the need for the animal at the time of move-in. The case was settled in favor of the tenant, requiring the landlord to make a payout of about $5,000 to the tenant and the Fair Housing Council of Oregon for imposing an undue burden on a person with a disability and thus impeding equal access to housing.
In addition, there is currently a case moving through the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that involves the sale of personal data by Perscreening.com to third parties. To create a profile on PetScreening.com, the user must agree to the terms and conditions, which include the sharing of data for advertisement purposes. The case argues that requiring tenants with disabilities to share their personal data with unknown third parties creates an extra barrier that is not required of tenants who are not disabled.
What do housing providers need to know before using PetScreening.com or similar services?
There are significant liability concerns that come with using a third-party service to screen and approve reasonable accommodation requests. I was able to speak with FHCO’s Legal Director, Steven Crawford, as well as our Investigations and Intake manager, Mario Anguiano, and ask them about what they wish housing providers knew about PetScreening.com. Their advice was simple: never require tenants to request their assistance animal through a web portal. Offering PetScreening as an additional option is probably okay, but legal concerns arise when using such services is mandatory, because it imposes an extra barrier that is exclusive to people with disabilities.
The Fair Housing Act is very clear that housing providers must accept any reasonable accommodation request with sufficient third-party verification, regardless of how the request is made, so long as the request does not pose significant financial or administrative concerns, require the housing provider to fundamentally alter their business model, or pose a direct threat to safety or property. Using services like PetScreening for regular household pets is permissible, but verification of assistance animals should be a separate and individual process.
What does the process look like to verify an assistance animal?
Housing providers can expect to have a tenant’s disability and need for an assistance animal verified by a qualified individual in the form of a letter unless the disability is already known to the landlord or is otherwise visually evident. They can ask for a photo of the animal and require that the animal be vaccinated in accordance with local law; making any requirement beyond what is stated in the Fair Housing Act may be grounds for legal action. It is much safer to review requests for assistance animals on an individual basis because housing providers can incur vicarious liability if a third party unlawfully denies a request.
To learn more about assistance animals, check out the following video offered by the Fair Housing Council of Oregon:
How can the Fair Housing Council of Oregon help?
Are you a housing provider with questions? The Fair Housing Council of Oregon provides educational materials and up-to-date resources on federal, state, and local fair housing guidance. Reach out to the Fair Housing Council of Oregon at https://fhco.org/housing-provider-contact-form/ to learn more.
If you are a tenant or advocate who has experienced an unlawful denial of an assistance animal or are being required to use a third-party website to verify your disability, please contact us via our website at www.fhco.org/report-housing-discrimination , or call our Intake and Investigations Department on Thursdays from 9am-12pm at 503-223-8197 x2.
About the Author
Gina Rizk is a longtime Portland resident with a Master’s in Education from Portland State University. She has been educating folks from all areas of the housing market in Fair Housing regulations for three years. She is a member of the Multnomah County Hoarding Task Force and runs a community advisory group for housing professionals and nonprofits in the Portland Metro Area. Before her time at FHCO, she taught kindergarten through eighth grade in the Portland Public School District, where she developed her understanding of culturally responsive and trauma-informed education practices.