A $2.275M class settlement takes the algorithm's score away: Louis v. SafeRent and the five-year rollback of tenant-screening scores for voucher applicants

The problem

In May 2021, Mary Louis — a Black housing-voucher holder in Massachusetts — was told by a property management company that “the third party service we utilize to screen all prospective tenants has denied your tenancy.” Per the Guardian’s reporting: “She needed to have a score of at least 443 for her application to be accepted. There was no further explanation and no way to appeal the decision.”

The service was SafeRent Solutions’ SafeRent Score, defined in the court-approved settlement agreement as a product that “uses rental applicant data and one of several proprietary scoring models to assign to the applicant a three-digit value or score,” reported to the housing provider with an “approved” / “approved with conditions” / “declined” recommendation. On 25 May 2022, Louis, Monica Douglas, and the Community Action Agency of Somerville filed a class action in the District of Massachusetts alleging the score discriminated against housing-voucher applicants by race and income under the Fair Housing Act and Massachusetts law — allegations, never adjudicated findings.

What the court approved (20 November 2024)

Judge Angel Kelley granted final approval of the class settlement as “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” certified two settlement classes of Massachusetts voucher applicants “denied housing … because of their SafeRent Score,” and entered final judgment dismissing the claims against SafeRent with prejudice.

The money reconciles to the cent inside the record: a $2,275,000 total consideration cap, split $1,175,000 (class fund) + $1,100,000 (fees-and-costs cap, awarded as $1,077,547.68 + $22,452.32), plus $10,000 service awards to each named plaintiff from the fund.

The outcome that matters: the score is switched off for voucher applicants

For five years, SafeRent may not put a SafeRent Score — or any accept/decline recommendation based on a tenant-screening score — on reports for housing-voucher applicants; landlords get “a report with underlying information” instead and decide themselves. On its “market” and “no-credit” models the customer must certify the applicant is not a voucher recipient, or the same ban applies. Any successor score for voucher-holders must first be validated by the National Fair Housing Alliance or an agreed equivalent. The court retains exclusive enforcement jurisdiction for the full five years.

What this is NOT

• Not a finding of discrimination: the approval order expressly bars reading the settlement as an admission of “any liability, negligence, fault, or wrongdoing,” and SafeRent’s spokesperson states the company “continues to believe the SRS Scores comply with all applicable laws.”
• Not an “AI” case in the court’s own words: “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning” appear zero times across all five court documents (verified absence). The record says “algorithm”; “AI” is the press’s label.
• Not a completed payout: the record shows approved obligations and a 2024-12-09 claims-verification deadline, not completed disbursement.

Path to green

There is no deployer-client to confirm an outcome with: every critical figure sits in signed federal-court orders and the court-approved agreement, each byte-tied (SHA-1/SHA-256) to the Internet Archive’s RECAP mirror. Remaining free upgrades: night-session Wayback SPN captures of the five RECAP URLs, the DOJ statement of interest via Wayback, and any post-settlement artifact dating SafeRent’s Section 3.5 certification (which starts the five-year clock).