Rental platform unnecessarily collected the data of millions of Australians, privacy commissioner finds

An online rental platform has been urged to stop collecting users’ personal information after the Australian privacy commissioner found the gathering of “excessive” data compounded the vulnerability of tenants amid the housing crisis.

RentTech platforms are increasingly used by real estate agents in Australia for people applying for rental properties to submit applications and supporting documentation. The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute has identified 57 different rent platforms operating in Australia.

An Ahuri report released in January found while providing personal information is necessary for rental agreements, the “over-collection of data poses significant risks to renters’ data security and privacy”.

Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email

In a first-of-its-kind determination against one of the platforms, published on Wednesday, the privacy commissioner, Carly Kind, found 2Apply, operated by InspectRealEstate, had collected excessive personal information in an unfair manner.

2Apply is one of the most commonly-used rental platforms in Australia and had processed more than 8.5m applications as of March 2025, the determination said.

Kind found that 2Apply did not need to collect gender information, detail on dependents, student status, bankruptcy status, retirement status, previous living history, current ownership of property, applications for other properties, bond/rent assistance application status and citizenship status or visa expiry.

Kind also found 2Apply could collect less information on emergency contacts, vehicle details, certain ID documents, proof of income documents and employment details.

The privacy commissioner found that 2Apply’s application system exhibited what is dubbed “confirmshaming” – an online tactic that uses guilt to discourage a user from opting out of something..

The form noteed that providing information would “help speed up your application process” and not providing it may “affect whether you are considered as a suitable tenant for the property”.

Kind wrote: “These statements are not necessarily untrue or misleading … However, by presenting these messages to individuals, my view is that the respondent is employing language that suggests that the volume and type of personal information provided is an indicator of their suitability as a tenant.”