Property technology is increasingly used to screen rental applicants and monitor tenants, raising concerns about privacy, fairness and whether Australia’s housing laws are keeping pace with algorithm-driven decisions, new research from the Sydney School of Architecture, Design and Planning has found.  

When Australians apply for a rental, they are often asked to hand over far more than a payslip and a reference. Bank statements, identity documents, rental histories, family details and even lifestyle information are increasingly fed into digital platforms that decide who gets a rental home and who misses out. 

New research, Implications of tenant data collection in housing: protecting Australian renters, was led by Associate Professor Sophia Maalsen for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI). It finds that property technology (PropTech) is increasingly used across Australia’s private and social rental sectors, shaping how rental housing is advertised, applications are screened, and tenants are monitored over time. 

There were 57 rental PropTech products operating in Australia early last year, which were increasingly involved in vetting and ‘scoring’ rental applicants. For the one in three Australian households who rent, the study suggests technology is quietly reshaping access to housing in ways most renters never see or understand. 

“PropTech is already utilising artificial intelligence and automated decision-making to rank which applicant should get a rental,” Associate Professor Maalsen said.

In the social rental sector, automated screening is used to identify the most vulnerable applicants and decide where applicants land on property waitlists.

While landlords and real estate agents are the main users of these systems, renters bear the risks. Large volumes of sensitive personal information are routinely collected, stored and shared, sometimes across multiple platforms. 

Associate Professor Maalsen warns this creates new risks of data breaches, privacy violations, discrimination and increased surveillance, particularly when renters have little insight into how decisions are made. 

“For many renters, how their application is assessed remains opaque,” she said. 

“Algorithms can weigh income levels, application completeness or past rental histories, but the criteria used and the way scores are calculated are rarely disclosed.

The research also raises concerns that Australia’s legal and regulatory frameworks have not kept pace with the rapid digitisation of renting. Many real estate agencies and PropTech providers are not covered by the Privacy Act because of the small business exemption, creating gaps in protections for renters’ personal data. 

Additionally, existing tenancy laws were largely designed for a pre-digital rental market and offer limited safeguards against automated decision-making. 

“One real estate agent we interviewed said consulting these databases when selecting tenants was expected,” Associate Professor Maalsen said.

Data collection often went further, with a survey of application forms finding one had approximately 50 data fields, including lifestyle-related insights.

“Applicants may be unaware they are being vetted by PropTech,” she said. “How applications are sorted and scored remains opaque, and the weighting of characteristics is unknown - creating a ‘black box’ effect.”

A ‘black box’ effect refers to systems - particularly AI - where inputs and outputs are visible, but the internal decision-making is not transparent, making it difficult to assess trust, detect bias, or ensure accountability.

At the same time, the study acknowledges PropTech can bring benefits, including faster applications, streamlined processes and better information sharing. 

“In social housing, digital tools can help identify households in greatest need,” Associate Professor Maalsen said. “But these efficiencies should not come at the cost of renters’ rights, privacy or fair access to housing.” 

The findings come as governments consider reforms under the National Cabinet’s Better Deal for Renters, including standardised application forms and limits on data retention. The research points to international examples, such as the European Union’s data protection and AI laws, as potential models for strengthening oversight and accountability in Australia’s rental market. 

“As rental competition intensifies and technology plays a bigger role in deciding who gets a roof over their head, stronger privacy protections and greater transparency are urgently needed to ensure digital tools do not deepen inequality or quietly shut people out of housing,” said Associate Professor Maalsen.