Skip to main content
Evergreen Ledger

ESSB 5937

Signed

Senate

Smart access systems/tenants

Concerning the use of a smart access system in a residential property subject to the residential landlord-tenant act.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: January 15, 2026
Last Action: March 16, 2026
Status: C 55 L 26
View Bill Text (HTML) (opens in new tab)View Bill Text (PDF) (opens in new tab)

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill establishes new rules for landlords who use smart access systems (like keyless entry, biometric scanners, or mobile apps) in rental buildings. It requires landlords to provide alternative, non-biometric access methods upon request, and to clearly disclose how tenant data is collected, stored, and protected. It also limits what data can be collected and sets privacy and security standards for smart access systems.

  • Landlords must provide an alternative key (e.g., physical key, key fob, or key card) to tenants who request it—no biometric or mobile app-based access is required.
  • Landlords of smart access buildings must share written privacy policies from the system developer or operator, and provide a plain-language summary of data collection, protection, retention, and breach response practices.
  • Smart access systems may only collect the minimum data needed for access—including name, unit number, contact info, biometrics (if used), hardware IDs, passwords, and access timestamps—but not guest data unless explicitly collected for access purposes.
  • New definitions clarify terms like 'smart access system', 'authentication data', 'biometric identifier information', and 'reference data' to support consistent application of tenant and landlord rights and duties.
  • Privacy policies must be provided at lease signing or system installation, and must include details on data collection (including guests), safeguards, retention schedules, breach response, and how to add temporary users with consent.

Who is affected

  • Residential tenants in smart access buildings — Tenants living in buildings with smart access systems (e.g., keyless entry, biometric scanners, mobile app access) gain new rights to request non-biometric access methods and receive clear information about how their data is collected, stored, and protected.
  • Residential landlords — Landlords of residential properties using smart access systems must comply with new requirements to provide alternative access methods and disclose privacy policies and data practices.
  • Smart access system providers — Third-party providers of smart access systems (e.g., companies that install and manage keyless entry systems) must ensure their systems meet data minimization and privacy standards, and provide privacy policies to landlords for tenant disclosure.
  • Tenants seeking non-biometric or non-digital access options — Tenants who prefer or require non-digital access (e.g., those uncomfortable with biometrics or without smartphones) gain the right to a physical or non-biometric alternative key or access method.
Effective: July 24, 2026Fiscal impact: No significant fiscal impact is described in the bill text. Costs may be borne by landlords or property managers to update access systems or provide alternative keys, but no state funding or budgetary changes are specified.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 20, 2026 at 3:09 AM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (5)

  • Tenants who cannot or choose not to use biometric or app-based access (e.g., due to disability, age, religious objections, or lack of smartphone access) gain a legal right to a physical key alternative—ensuring equal access and preventing digital exclusion, especially for low-income, elderly, or unhoused transitional populations.

    Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2

  • Mandating plain-language privacy disclosures empowers tenants to make informed choices about data sharing, reducing the risk of unauthorized surveillance or data misuse—particularly important for marginalized groups (e.g., immigrants, survivors of stalking) who may be disproportionately targeted or harmed by data exploitation.

    Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 3

  • Data minimization requirements—limiting collection to only what is necessary for access—reduce the scope of potential data breaches and misuse, protecting tenant privacy and reducing the risk of identity theft, especially for tenants with limited ability to monitor or remediate data exposure.

    Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 4(1) & (2)

  • Requiring landlords to disclose data retention schedules and protection protocols helps tenants assess whether their personal information is being stored longer than necessary or inadequately secured—supporting proactive safety planning and reducing long-term exposure to surveillance or exploitation.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(b) & (c)

  • Mandating permanent destruction or anonymization of data upon lease termination or system decommissioning prevents data hoarding and limits the potential for post-tenancy misuse—benefiting tenants who move frequently or who may be at risk if their access data falls into the wrong hands.

    Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(e)
Potential Concerns (5)

  • Landlords must provide alternative physical access methods upon tenant request, which may require retrofitting existing smart access systems or maintaining dual systems, increasing operational and capital costs for landlords—particularly small landlords or those managing older buildings with limited technical capacity.

    HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2

  • Mandating disclosure of guest data collection practices may deter landlords from offering shared or temporary access features (e.g., guest codes), reducing flexibility for tenants who rely on hosting visitors—especially those in multigenerational households, caregivers, or low-income tenants who frequently host family or friends.

    Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(a)

  • Requiring landlords to disclose breach response protocols may create confusion or anxiety among tenants unfamiliar with cybersecurity, and could incentivize landlords to limit access features (e.g., disable guest access) to reduce liability exposure—potentially reducing convenience and safety for tenants who rely on flexible access for daily life.

    Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(d)

  • Collecting lease dates as part of authentication data increases data exposure risk, and while minimal in isolation, combined with other identifiers it may facilitate identity theft or housing fraud—particularly for vulnerable tenants (e.g., survivors of domestic violence) who rely on mobility and timing to avoid abusers.

    HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(g)

  • The requirement to disclose how temporary users are added may impose administrative burdens on property managers—especially in large complexes or multi-property portfolios—where manual consent tracking increases labor costs, potentially passed on to tenants via higher rents or reduced service quality.

    Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(f)

Who Is Most Affected

Low-income, elderly, or disabled tenants in smart-access buildingsPositive Impact

Low-income, elderly, disabled, or technologically excluded tenants benefit significantly: they gain legal access to non-digital entry options and clearer data rights, reducing exclusion and surveillance risks. However, some may face delays if landlords delay implementation due to cost concerns.

Residential landlords (especially small-scale or mom-and-pop)Mixed Impact

Landlords of small-to-midsize properties face modest compliance costs (e.g., installing physical keys, drafting disclosures), but avoid major liability shifts. Large property managers may absorb costs more easily, while small landlords may pass them to tenants via rent increases.

Smart access system providersMixed Impact

Smart access providers must now design systems to meet data minimization and disclosure standards, potentially increasing R&D costs. However, compliance may also create new market differentiation opportunities (e.g., 'privacy-compliant' systems).

Tenants who frequently host guests or caregiversMixed Impact

Tenants who rely on guest access (e.g., caregivers, multigenerational households) may see reduced flexibility if landlords simplify systems to avoid guest-data disclosure obligations—though privacy protections may outweigh this for many.

Survivors of interpersonal violence or housing-based persecutionPositive Impact

Survivors of domestic violence, stalking, or housing discrimination benefit from reduced data collection and increased control over access methods—critical for safety planning. However, if landlords limit guest access features, some may lose temporary shelter options.