A credit score feels like a neutral number. In tenant screening, it's a disparate-impact claim hiding in plain sight. Median FICO scores split along racial lines: 727 for White households, 667 for Hispanic, 627 for Black. Lean on credit as your main screening signal and you encode those gaps straight into who gets approved. That's what sank SafeRent. Its ScorePLUS algorithm scored voucher holders low on credit while ignoring the guaranteed income vouchers provide. The $2.275M settlement in late 2024 also killed the defense vendors counted on: a screening provider can't hide behind "we're just a neutral tool." If your score drives the decision, you share the liability. But screening isn't the only algorithm in the building. Pricing is a second lawsuit under different law. RealPage's software pulled non-public rents from competing landlords to move prices "in unison" — the DOJ called it a hub-and-spoke cartel, and landlords have settled those claims for more than $140M. The one landlord-side win came from architecture: Yardi beat a California antitrust case by proving its pricing engine was walled off and by design couldn't see any other client's confidential data. Same company, same data team, two unrelated legal theories — and California and New York just switched on new pricing laws. Screening and pricing get audited together, or not at all. Which front worries your legal team more — and are the two even talking to each other? #FairHousing #AIGovernance #PropTech