## Facts

- Roommate.com operated a website to help users find roommates in shared housing.
- Users were required to create profiles answering questions about sex, sexual orientation, and whether they had children living with them, and to state roommate preferences along the same categories.
- The site matched users and enabled searches filtered by those characteristics.
- Users could also post free-form content in an “Additional Comments” field.
- Fair housing organizations sued, alleging the site’s design and sorting practices violated the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
- After an earlier appellate ruling limited Communications Decency Act § 230 immunity (immunity for “Additional Comments,” not for mandatory questions/matching), the district court on remand granted summary judgment to plaintiffs and entered a permanent injunction against Roommate.com.
- Roommate.com appealed; plaintiffs cross-appealed regarding relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the FHA’s prohibitions on discrimination in the “sale or rental of a dwelling” apply to the selection of a roommate in a shared living arrangement.
2. Whether FEHA applies to roommate-selection conduct in shared housing.
3. If either statute applies, whether Roommate.com’s required questions and matching/sorting functions violate those statutes.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held the FHA does not reach roommate selection in shared living units.
- The court held FEHA likewise does not extend to roommate selection in shared housing.
- The court vacated the district court’s judgment and permanent injunction and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Roommate.com.

## Legal Principles

- The FHA’s “sale or rental of a dwelling” provisions are construed not to cover an individual’s choice of a roommate in a shared residence absent clear congressional direction.
- Where a broad construction would raise serious constitutional questions, courts may apply constitutional avoidance and adopt a narrower interpretation.
- Regulation of roommate selection implicates constitutional interests in privacy and intimate association, including the right to choose with whom to share one’s home.
- Similar privacy and associational concerns support construing California FEHA not to regulate roommate choice in shared living units.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit concluded that federal and California housing-discrimination statutes do not regulate the private selection of roommates in shared housing, and it set aside the injunction and liability determination entered against Roommate.com.


Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC, 666 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2012)