The Voucher Score — SafeRent, $2.3 Million, Final

The Verge, November 20, 2024: US District Judge Angel Kelley issued final approval for a roughly $2.3 million settlement. SafeRent, an AI screening tool used by landlords, will no longer use AI-powered scores to evaluate whether someone using housing vouchers would make a good tenant, in that walk. Filed 2022, District of Massachusetts. Alleged harm to people using housing vouchers — specifically Black and Hispanic applicants in the complaint's weather. Fair Housing Act. Massachusetts law.

Five years: SafeRent will not display a tenant screening score for voucher applicants nationwide, nor include a score when landlords use its "affordable" SafeRent Score model, nor display accept/deny recommendations if the applicant uses housing vouchers. Landlords, in that walk, will have to evaluate those renters on the entire record. The money goes to Massachusetts-based rental applicants who used housing vouchers and were not able to secure housing due to the score, in that walk.

Yazmin Lopez, SafeRent spokesperson, to The Verge: the company continues to believe the scores comply with all applicable laws; litigation is time-consuming and expensive; defending the score would divert time and resources.

I will keep the mouth. I will keep it in The Verge's November weather. I will not upgrade comply to a holding I held. A spokesperson can say expensive. A judge can still stamp a final. Two sentences can share a month without becoming one sentence.

The consideration in the agreement I walked is two million two hundred seventy-five thousand dollars. $2,275,000.00. The Verge, in the walk this chapter already used, said roughly $2.3 million. I will keep both labels. I will not add them. I will not freeze 2.275 as a check I endorsed. I will not freeze 2.3 as a rounding that became a fact. Two walks. One November. Rudd wrote $2.275M agreement / ~$2.3M Verge / do not add and boxed do not add. He said adding is how a grocery line buys a third million. I said a third million is a novel. He punched a flyer that had used the word roughly as if roughly were a statute.

The fee order I walked, the same November 20: attorneys' fees $1,077,547.68, costs $22,452.32, paid by SafeRent in the manner the agreement contemplated. Service awards $10,000 each to Mary Louis and Monica Douglas. I am putting a million-and-change next to ten thousand so a grocery line cannot spend the fee as if it were the jar and cannot spend the jar as if it were the fee. Fees are a kitchen. Service is a kitchen. The consideration is a third kitchen. None of them is a finding that a score was a person.

Odette asked if $10,000 was a wage. I said it was a service award in a fee order. She said awards are for school. I said this award is two names. She wiped around the seven. The seven did not become 2.3. I did not write 2.275 on the board. Writing a settlement on a whiteboard is how a hall becomes a brochure.

Tansy has never used a voucher I know about. She is not a voucher class member. She is still not an Illinois interview class. Two kitchens she does not live in. She asked, in the booth, whether comply meant the score had won. I said a mouth can keep comply after a final. She said then the final is a costume. I said the final is a stamp and the mouth is a sentence in The Verge. She left a tip that was a coin. Coins are honest. Mouths are a spokesperson.

I will keep the mouth. I will keep the final. Two sentences. One November.

Bloomberg Law walked final approval of the $2.3 million deal and the five-year promise not to include a SafeRent Score or an accept/decline recommendation based on a tenant screening score, and a requirement that customers certify the applicant is not currently a recipient of a publicly funded federal or state housing voucher. I am putting the certification next to the score so a grocery line cannot call the settlement a disappearance of scoring. Scoring can continue for people who are not vouchered. Vouchered is a chair. A chair can be carved out. A carve-out is a public.

I printed the Verge walk. Odette asked if a voucher was a coupon. I said it was a statute's cousin. She said coupons are for groceries. I said this cousin is a house. She wiped the seven. The seven stayed.

Rudd wrote $2.3M / final / 5yr / voucher carve-out / still complies mouth and boxed final. He said finals are how clients sleep. I said finals are how museums keep a door that already closed. He punched a flyer.

Tansy has never used a voucher I know about. I will not make her a class member. She asked whether "the landlord AI" meant her next lease would have a score. I said scores are a product some kitchens still sell. She said then why the book. I said because a final can leave a mouth that says comply. She paid for the coffee.

I sat, while I still had a badge, in a meeting whose title was screening-product hygiene. Someone said we should "not be in housing." I said we should not be in a score we had not filed. Legal said we should take housing offline. We shipped a sentence about risk. Risk is a brochure that shares a noun with a fourteenth hole.

I will not give you a tenant score you can invert. I will tell you the final happened, that $2.3 million is a Massachusetts kitchen for vouchered applicants in that walk, that five years is a clock, and that comply is still a mouth. The next room is a 2016 sentencing score. The voucher is this one.

The Caption With Four Chairs

Louis v. SafeRent Solutions, LLC, 1:22-cv-10800, District of Massachusetts. Judge Angel Kelley. The caption I walked also names Metropolitan Management Group, LLC as a defendant. Named plaintiffs, in the papers I held: Mary Louis, Monica Douglas, and Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc. I am putting Somerville in this room so a grocery line cannot call the agency a vibe. An agency can be a plaintiff. A management group can be a defendant. A score company can share a caption with a landlord kitchen. I will not invent their Tuesdays. I will say four chairs can share a docket, and that a docket is a public, and that Tansy is not in any of the chairs.

Metropolitan did not sit in the SafeRent settlement kitchen I already walked. An April 25, 2024, electronic order in that caption, in the docket walk I held, said Mary Louis and Metropolitan had been unable to reach a settlement and directed a proposed schedule consistent with a trial date of September 8, 2025, and a September 16, 2024, deadline for fact discovery and dispositive motions. I will keep unable. I will keep directed. I will not freeze September 8, 2025, as a trial I sat. I will not invent what happened to Metropolitan after that weather. I will say a landlord kitchen can stay in a caption after a score company has executed a March paper, and that staying is a public, and that a public is not a finding I will spend as a verdict against a management group. Two defendants can share a number and not share a stamp.

Rudd wrote Metropolitan / unable Apr 25 2024 walk / trial date weather / do not freeze / ≠ SafeRent final and boxed unable. He punched a flyer that had used the word together. He said together is a brochure. I said together is not in the electronic order I held.

Odette asked if unable was a stain that would not lift. I said it was a docket sentence about two parties. She said parties are for people. I said this party is a management group. She wiped the seven. I did not write Metropolitan on the board. Writing a defendant on a whiteboard is how a hall becomes a docket I will not run.

Tansy is still not in that chair. She has not used a voucher I know about. She asked whether "the landlord" meant her next lease. I said I would not invent her lease. She paid for the coffee.

The Chapter 93A claims against SafeRent — Counts VII and VIII — were dismissed earlier. July 26, 2023, in the clearinghouse walk of Judge Kelley's memorandum: Metropolitan's motion denied; SafeRent's granted in part and denied in part; 93A against SafeRent dismissed. I will not un-dismiss those counts to make a later final look hungrier. A dismissal can sit under a settlement and remain a dismissal. I am putting July 26 next to November 20 so a grocery line cannot call the final a case that kept every statute it started with. Some statutes left. The ones that left stay left.

Rudd wrote 1:22-cv-10800 / Kelley / Louis Douglas CAAS Metropolitan / 93A VII-VIII dismissed July 26 2023 / do not revive and boxed do not revive. He punched a coupon that had used the word consumer. He said consumer is a brochure in this kitchen. I said consumer was a count that already went home.

Ren sells manila folders in a stack that still has a rubber band. I bought a pack I did not need because a settlement still wants a sleeve if you are the kind of person who will not trust a PDF, and Rudd is that kind of person, and I am tired of watching him punch a screen. She asked if I was moving. I said I was dating a caption. She said captions are for photographs. I said this caption is Massachusetts. She dated the receipt. Rubber bands are honest. Revivals are a later costume.

The March That Executed and the November That Stamped

Settlement agreement executed March 28, 2024. Execution date, in the paper I walked, is a defined term. Preliminary-approval papers went on the docket that same day. Final approval November 20, 2024, after a hearing the papers put on November 18. I am putting March next to November so a grocery line cannot call the Verge day the only day. An execution is a signature kitchen. A hearing is a chair kitchen. A stamp is a later kitchen. Three days. One consideration.

The agreement's total settlement consideration, again, because a grocery line will try to lose the cents: not to exceed $2,275,000.00, including payments to eligible members, notice and administration, service awards, and fees and costs. Up to $1,175,000 into a fund for class payments, administration, and service awards, in the motion walk. Fees and costs not to exceed $1,100,000 in that same ask; the later order gave $1,077,547.68 and $22,452.32. I will not freeze the ask as the stamp. I will not freeze the stamp as a check I held. I will say an ask can be a ceiling and a stamp can be a number under the ceiling, and that a ceiling is a public.

Polly put the tin back and asked if March was a wedding. I said it was an execution date. She said executions are for wills. I said this execution is a class paper. She did not ask if I was converted. Conversion is another book's religion.

The Windows That End at Preliminary

Two settlement classes, for settlement purposes only, in the final-approval walk.

Massachusetts Income-Based Settlement Class: all rental applicants who used publicly funded housing vouchers and sought but were denied housing in Massachusetts because of their SafeRent Score at any property using SafeRent's tenant screening services between May 25, 2021, and the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.

Massachusetts Race-Based Settlement Class: all Black and Hispanic rental applicants who used publicly funded housing vouchers and sought but were denied housing in Massachusetts because of their SafeRent Score at any property using SafeRent's tenant screening services between May 25, 2020, and the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.

I am putting 2020 next to 2021 so a grocery line cannot buy one window as both windows. Race weather starts earlier. Income weather starts later. Both end at preliminary approval. Preliminary is a door with a date. I will not invent the date as a Tuesday I sat. I will say a window can close on a stamp I have not used as a birthday.

Tansy is not in either window. She has not used a voucher I know about. She did not seek Massachusetts housing I will invent. She sat a HireVue-style interview in a state I will not use as a trailer. She is not Illinois. She is not this class. She asked whether "Black and Hispanic" meant the book had made her a cousin. I said I would not make her a cousin. She said then why the diner. I said because a final can leave a mouth that says comply, and a diner is where I refuse a kit. She paid for her coffee. I did not pay for a claim form.

Cole asked whether "the two windows" meant "landlords lost." I said lost is a polo word. He said then why $2.3 million. I said $2.3 million is a Verge rounding of a $2.275 million consideration, and both are walks, and neither is a finding I will spend as a fourteenth-hole score. He wrote a five. I did not enjoy my six.

The Five Years That Are Not a Disappearance

Section 3.5 of the agreement I walked: practice changes for five years, beginning when SafeRent certifies the changes have been made, and beginning no later than twelve months from the March 28 execution date. I will not freeze twelve months as a finding that a product vanished in March. A clock can start later than a signature. A clock is a public.

For customers on the "affordable" SafeRent Score model, in that section: no SafeRent Score or other tenant-screening score on the report, and no accept/decline recommendation based on any tenant-screening score, with a report of underlying information instead, subject to the exceptions the agreement wrote and I will not typeset as a workaround. For customers on the "market" or "no-credit" models: the customer must affirmatively certify that the rental applicant is not currently a recipient of any publicly funded federal or state housing voucher. If the customer does not certify, no score and no score-based accept/decline, underlying information instead. Training or instruction to housing providers about the difference between affordable and market and no-credit, in the same section. The court retained jurisdiction for five years from the date SafeRent confirms the 3.5 changes, in the judgment walk.

I am putting certify next to affordable so a grocery line cannot call five years a disappearance of scoring. The five-year clock, in the Verge and Bloomberg walks this chapter already used, is nationwide for voucher applicants: no score and no accept-deny on that chair. Scoring can continue for people who are not vouchered, if a landlord is willing to say they are not vouchered. Vouchered is a chair. A chair can be carved out. A carve-out is a public. A certification is a sentence a landlord is asked to say. I will not typeset the sentence as a script. I will say a script is a kit, and a kit is what Rudd punches.

Ursa sells coffee filters in a bag that still has a count. I bought a pack I did not need because Rudd's one-button machine still wants a paper and a pad still wants a wet ring that is not solvent. She asked if I was entertaining. I said I was dating a five-year clock. She said clocks are for churches. I said this clock starts when a company certifies a change. She dated the receipt. Counts are honest. Certifications are a section.

Odette asked if a voucher was still a coupon. I said it was still a statute's cousin. She said cousins are for weddings. I said this cousin is a house a score was asked not to grade for five years in that walk. She wiped the seven. Solvent. Marker. The hold song stayed muted under a rag she would not lift.

Ash said, at the shoe cleaner, that five years was frictionless product segmentation. I said segmentation is a vest hyphen. He said then why certify. I said certify is how the market model keeps a score for a person a landlord is willing to describe. He buffed a shoe that did not need buffing.

I will not give you a tenant score you can invert. I will not give you a certification you can copy. I will not give you a claim form. I will tell you 1:22-cv-10800 happened, that Kelley is the stamp, that Louis and Douglas and Somerville and Metropolitan sat in the caption, that March 28 executed and November 20 stamped, that $2.275 million and ~$2.3 million are two labels, that $1,077,547.68 and $22,452.32 and two $10,000s are a fee kitchen, that the windows are May 25, 2021, and May 25, 2020, to preliminary, that 3.5 is five years of no score and no accept-deny for vouchered affordable walks and a certify for the other models, that Counts VII and VIII stay dismissed, that Lopez still said comply, and that Tansy is still not the class. The 2016 sentencing score is still the next room. The voucher is still this one.