Can Landlords Force California Tenants to Use Smart Locks?

With the ubiquity of smartphones and smartwatches, landlords are increasingly installing smart locks — electronic front door locks operated by applications installed on various smart devices — throughout the United States. Smart lock software is in more than 125,000 units nationwide. Further, the smart lock market value is forecasted to reach $8.80 billion globally by 2028. California tenants will likely increasingly be forced to contend with smart locks when selecting a new home. And, some landlords may attempt to switch traditional key locks with smart locks, likely to surveil and harass California tenants.

Given the technologies’ newness, California law has yet to modernize to offer California tenants any protection from landlord smart lock abuse. Therefore, landlords are virtually free to surveil California tenants, harass California tenants, excluding California tenants, and perform instant, digital lockouts. Moreover, no California law protects California tenants that must use smart locks.

While no California law directly regulates smart locks, California tenants may invoke the following laws to protect against landlord smart lock harassment and retaliation:

• Fair Employment & Housing Act: Some disabled California tenants may invoke the Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”) to request a traditional physical key. For instance, a California tenant incapable of using a smart device due to a disability can request reasonable accommodation from their landlord. One form of accommodation is simply providing a traditional, physical key. Where the landlord fails to accommodate or engage in a good faith discussion about the matter, the California tenant has a claim;
• Unruh Act: Where a California tenant in a legally protected class suffers discrimination due to their landlord’s smart lock use, they may bring a claim under the Unruh Act, which outlaws discrimination in rental housing;
• Municipal Tenant Harassment Ordinances: California tenants residing in cities and counties with tenant harassment ordinances may bring claims for tenant harassment where their landlord refuses to provide a traditional physical key, uses smart lock data to harass the California tenant, performs an instant digital lockout, or otherwise uses the smart lock technology harasses or retaliates against the California tenant. California tenants in many cities may bring tenant harassment claims for their landlord’s smart lock abuse, including but not limited to:
• San Francisco Tenants: San Francisco Administrative Code § 37.10B;
• Los Angeles Tenants: Los Angeles Municipal Code § 45.33;
• Oakland Tenants: Oakland Municipal Code § 8.22.640;
• Berkeley Tenants: Berkeley Municipal Code § 13.79.060;
• Inglewood Tenants: Inglewood Municipal Code § 8–133;
• Santa Monica Tenants: Santa Monica Municipal Code § 4.56.020;
• West Hollywood Tenants: West Hollywood Municipal Code § 17.52.090;
• Richmond Tenants: Richmond Municipal Code § 11.103.060;
• Concord Tenants: Concord Municipal Code § 19.50.020;
• Hayward Tenants: Hayward Municipal Code § 12–1.12;
• Chula Vista Tenants: Chula Vista Municipal Code § 9.65.050; and,
• Culver City Tenants: Culver City Municipal Code § 15.09.340.

California tenants may also likely bring claims for landlord smart lock abuse under nuisance, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, privacy violation, and retaliation theories.

Further, it is unclear how California tenants in existing tenancies will fare where their landlord seeks to swap their traditional physical lock and key with smart locks. Language in the written lease may require the landlord keep the physical lock and key installed. California tenants in certain rent control cities may also be able to keep their physical lock and key set installed by pointing to a just cause provision prohibiting material changes to the written lease. For example, San Francisco tenants need not sign a proposed written lease containing materially different lease provisions. San Francisco Administrative Code § 37.9(a)(5). These tenants may be able to argue changing the locks violates the written lease and they need not sign a new written lease as it fundamentally changes a key component of their tenancy.

And, the California tenant may have a data breach claim against the smart lock application, and possibly their landlord and property manager, where the California tenant’s personal information is compromised in an unlawful data breach.

Click here to read the most current version of this article.