California has built a reputation for strong tenant protections, and when it comes to disability accommodation fees, the state's laws are particularly robust. If you're a California renter who was charged money through PetScreening to process an ESA accommodation, you likely have stronger legal standing than you realize — potentially under both federal and state law simultaneously.
This isn't a close call. Housing rights attorneys in the state have reviewed the PetScreening fee structure and reached a consistent conclusion: these charges almost certainly violate the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Federal Law: The Baseline
Start with the federal floor. The Fair Housing Act requires landlords to provide reasonable accommodations for tenants with disabilities, which includes permitting emotional support animals in no-pet housing. Charging a fee to process that accommodation request is prohibited.
HUD's guidance memorandum FHEO-2020-01 was issued specifically to address the growing practice of landlords requiring tenants to use third-party platforms to process ESA requests. The guidance states that housing providers may not "require persons making accommodation requests to use a specific form or to provide information to a third-party" and that any resulting fee burden on the tenant is inconsistent with the Act.
That's the federal baseline. California's law goes further.
California's FEHA: More Protective Than Federal Law
The Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code § 12955 et seq.) prohibits housing discrimination based on disability and imposes affirmative obligations on landlords to engage in a good-faith interactive process when a tenant requests a reasonable accommodation. California courts and the Civil Rights Department (formerly the Department of Fair Employment and Housing) have interpreted these obligations broadly.
Critically, California law doesn't just prohibit fees on accommodation requests — it requires the interactive process to be genuinely accessible. Routing that process through a paid third-party platform creates a financial barrier to entering the process at all. Under California's framework, that barrier itself can constitute a failure to engage in the required interactive process.
California Civil Code § 1942.5 also prohibits landlord retaliation against tenants who exercise their housing rights. If a landlord has denied or delayed your accommodation because you refused to pay a PetScreening fee, that may constitute retaliatory conduct on top of the underlying fee violation.
AB 468 and the Documentation Rules
California passed AB 468, effective January 1, 2022, which established rules about ESA documentation and what landlords can and cannot require. The law prohibits landlords from requiring documentation that meets a specific format or comes from a specific type of provider. It also restricts landlords from charging fees solely because a tenant has an ESA.
AB 468 reinforces the broader FEHA framework: the state has deliberately legislated against the kinds of documentation gatekeeping and fee extraction that PetScreening's model depends on. California landlords who require PetScreening as part of the ESA process are arguably violating AB 468's spirit directly, if not its letter.
Who Enforces This in California?
California tenants have two primary enforcement avenues. The first is a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), which investigates housing discrimination complaints under FEHA at no cost to the tenant. The CRD has authority to investigate, mediate, and pursue civil action on behalf of aggrieved tenants.
The second is a parallel complaint with HUD under the federal Fair Housing Act. Both complaints can be filed simultaneously — HUD and the CRD have a work-sharing agreement, so a complaint to one agency is typically dual-filed with the other. You don't have to choose.
Private litigation is also an option. California's FEHA allows successful plaintiffs to recover actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. This fee-shifting provision matters: it means attorneys are willing to take strong cases on contingency, since their fees are recoverable if they win. A $20 fee may seem too small to litigate, but class action dynamics — and the availability of attorney's fees — change the calculus significantly.
The Pattern Across California
Reports from California tenants follow a familiar pattern. They submit ESA documentation directly, get redirected to PetScreening, and are told their accommodation cannot be processed without completing the platform's intake, including paying the fee. Some landlords have told tenants that their documentation "isn't valid" unless verified through PetScreening — a statement that is simply untrue under both federal and California law.
Several California fair housing organizations have tracked this pattern and report a significant uptick in PetScreening-related complaints over the past 18 months. The organizations have collectively concluded that the PetScreening fee model is incompatible with California law and are encouraging affected tenants to file complaints.
If You're a California Tenant
Document the fee charge, the landlord's requirement to use PetScreening, and any communications about your ESA accommodation. Then send a written demand letter to your landlord citing the Fair Housing Act, FHEO-2020-01, and California's FEHA. Request a full refund of any fees paid and written confirmation that future accommodation requests will not require use of a paid third-party platform.
If the landlord refuses — or if you simply prefer to go straight to a formal process — file with the California Civil Rights Department and/or HUD. Both processes are free, and you have one year from the date of the violation to file at the federal level (California's statute of limitations may differ — consult the CRD's guidance).
California gave its tenants powerful tools to fight exactly this kind of discrimination. Use them.
TenantPetRights.org is an independent educational resource. Not a law firm. Not legal advice.