How does that hold up? If I return the car, the attendant inspects it, and I go home... then later I receive a bill about a scratch that the attendant didn't point out and that I cannot possibly inspect on the car... why would I possibly pay up? How could anyone litigate if I disagree and the car has been rented again?
It would make a lot more sense to scan the car immediately when I return it, point out the damage, and bill me right there. I don't think that is what they do though? Is the scanner in another location?
IMO this is exactly how it works without the Ai already. I have had a pleasure of renting a plentitude of cars all over the world, and would say that in 10-15% cases there will be reason to withhold or try to withdraw money for “various car damages”, “traffic violations”, “empty gas tank”, .. It doesn’t matter if this is pre-war Ukraine, spain, turkey, small company, large corp,.. Now they just have a tool for that.
Psa:
in most places they would try to scam you by removing a small piece of trim (under the rearview mirror, below bumper,..) and on your return claim it as a damage. That’s why you need to take a video and pics while taking the car. This trick saved me probably tens of thousands of dollars by now.
Don't worry, they'll probably make signing up for binding arbitration part of the rental agreement, conveniently having the arbitration decided by someone who sides with the company 99% of the time. It's all good though. They're certainly not scamming you.
Lately it feels like the most reputable and large companies are even running scams. The US feels filled to the brim with incredibly convoluted scams. We're innovating new ways to scam people out of their money every other day.
Man, just sell a product or service and be normal.
It's pretty funny to contrast these practices against things IRBs can require. IRBs require informed consent and often require the entire "contract" be read aloud verbatim (no summarization) to people. This incentivizes making things as short and easy to comprehend has possible.
Furthermore the IRB will decide whether the agreement is compressible to the intended audience.
Whereas in tech the opposite is true. The goal is to get people to agree to something they do not understand. This incentivizes long confusing walls of text and convoluted language so that people just click without reading.
Ultimately the difference is that when push comes to shove tech has not been required to prove people even read (much less understand) what they are signing.
What's weird is not that companies would want to try to be greedy, but how society has socially normalized not even reading important, binding legal contracts with real consequences, and just signing them without much, if any, serious consideration of the ramifications of what we're agreeing to.
What's actually weird is how society normalized binding contracts that are far too long to be reasonably read by the people they are supposed to be binding to.
A well functioning legal system would throw out everything in those contracts on that basis alone.
Because it doesn't actually matter. A single click EULA won't hold up in court if they've actually done wrong. And even without a single click EULA you still weren't gonna win a coin toss lawsuit against a megacorp. So for most people it's a wash.
If you buy a latte at a coffee chain and you use their app to pay, you've probably agreed to a hundred page agreement that they reserve the right to change at any time, and which subjects you to binding arbitration, perhaps even if you decide to hand the barista a $10 note.
Disney recently tried to use the terms and conditions of a Disney+ subscription to get out of a claim arising from their theme parks.
Automation has made it so easy to bury society in legally binding click-through contracts. It's very unclear what innovation or business model the general public would be deprived of if we severely limited click-through agreements, or even wet signature contracts below certain thresholds.
I don't have Apple's app store or the Google Play Store on my phone. When it comes to Dr's offices and the like asking me to download an app, I just tell them I don't have a smartphone and don't want one.
> How could anyone litigate if I disagree and the car has been rented again?
The scans are evidence. Whether the are sufficient evidence to overcome whatever counterevidence you can provide (the civil standard of proof for liability being a preponderance of the evidence, not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for criminal liability) is a matter that would be decided at trial (or, more likely, arbitration.)
The Hertz from this article is a company you should never do business with, unless you like getting falsely accused of a felony, arrested, and imprisoned for no reason:
I personally use other companies when I rent a car... but I'm also paranoid about the kind of nonsense described in the article, so I just buy the damage coverage when I rent the car. It means renting a car is far more expensive than it should be, but it saved my bacon the last time I rented when someone dinged the paint.
It's funny that the AI bogeyman is used in the article to make this new tech seem scarier. The problem is the general practice of trying to milk you for money over regular wear and tear.
I'm an Avis person myself, and their response at the bottom of the article gives me a little hope that they've at least thought about this tech for more than 8 seconds. I once drove into the rental center with part of the car dragging along the ground, as it had been for the past 100ish miles. The conversation was as follows:
Avis employee: "Sounds like you got part of the car dragging."
Me: "Yeah I noticed that."
Avis employee: "Don't worry about it, here's your receipt."
I've always been told while renting a car that any dent/ding smaller than a golf ball was considered wear and tear, and I've never had a problem over at least 50 car rentals.
However, I've always noticed that Hertz is very dependent on the particular branch you rent from, and I generally avoid them unless I have met the general manager for the location and gotten to know them. In that case, it's been the _best_ company I've used. Otherwise, I stay far, far away. Enterprise seems more consistent.
I personally had a terrible experience with Enterprise. They were great right up until they tried to pass off preexisting damage as something I had done (it was odd damage to the roof, which I couldn't see prior to taking the car without a stool or something), based on no evidence. They wanted me to pay over 2k for repairs, and I fought and fought to see their "evidence" and get it overturned all while they said "the investigation is already complete" and insisted I pay the damages immediately. I managed to find an agent that finally showed me there was no evidence. When I told them I would file a complaint to the Better Business Bureau I got an email within hours dropping the claim with many apologies, and a personal call from the manager who had been impossible to get a hold of prior to this. It was a relief but I am disgusted by the whole debacle. The nice salesperson front drops away quickly when they say you owe them a claim, then they become a nightmare to deal with. Personally I will never rent from them again.
If you ever do rent a car, make sure to take a good video around the car, of the roof, and the underside and inside for good measure.
All three times I’ve attempted to use hertz since 2021, I’ve shown up with a reservation only to be told they have no cars. Their overbooking policy appears to be “yes”. Even without this bullshit they aren’t worth touching.
The ultimate goal is to intimidate renters into purchasing as much insurance (Collision Damage Waiver, Liability, etc.) as possible, effectively doubling the cost of a daily rental.
Fairly-priced insurance for this sort of thing is available for much closer to its actuarial value—that is to say, much cheaper than at the rental car counter. So cheap, in fact, that in the US, surprisingly many consumer credit cards toss in some sort of rental car insurance at no charge—good wherever, whenever, and however often (within reason). Without even so much as a driving history check.
For that matter, the car rental firms routinely bundle damage waivers/insurance products into their volume/corporate contracts and still arrive at prices below the retail base rates.
I don't think it's the insurance itself that's being sold here at all. It's more more predatory than that: it's the kind of price discrimination that squeezes a premium for "peace of mind" from the segment of their retail trade who are nervous, inexperienced, risk-averse, or financially unable to accept the small risk of an expensive event. Like a payday loan—it's spectacularly expensive to be poor.
The small print (of my card) mentions a maximum vehicle value. Every time I’ve asked for the vehicle’s value when renting abroad, it’s been higher than the card’s maximum.
You come out ahead very quickly getting a credit card that will cover the rental car (e.g. a Chase Sapphire Preferred) and paying the annual fee instead of buying insurance through the rental car company.
I've never seen a no-annual-fee card that covers loss of use though. No-annual-fee card damage waivers are also typically secondary to your personal insurance (meaning you have to make a claim and your rates could go up), while the CSP's insurance is primary so your personal insurance is not involved at all.
This is being framed all dystopian, but I'm not so pessimistic.
The current process is ridiculous - a random teenager in a vest with 15 minutes of training inspects the car when you check it out, and then you get a former drill sergeant when you check it back in. The current process is no less fair and Hertz is no less evil - but in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available.
> The current process is no less fair and Hertz is no less evil - but in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available.
I don't think it's impartial: the implication here is that the same technology is not available to the renter, so Hertz can easily claim damage that was already present at checkout that an ordinary customer picture can't refute. That asymmetry seems bad to me.
That's weird, because when I rent a car, I take photos and videos and I make sure to have a attendant write down the damage on the rental paper before I drive away.
The point was that basic ass covering isn't good enough; my visual scan and phone photos aren't going to match what a machine designed to find defects can do.
(I think everyone does - or at least should do - what you do. I certainly do.)
I would need examples of the defects that this machine would find that a) would matter enough to bother with and b) not be something a human could bring up arbitrarily too if they happened to not like me.
This is a lot more complicated than assuming that a machine will find things more consistently than a ~minimum wage employee, especially if the latter isn't motivated to screw you.
(It's also far from the original point, which is purely about symmetry.)
> in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available.
Whenever I rent a car, after getting the keys I walk around the car and take photos of it on my phone from every angle. If I notice any scratches or dents, I tell them. But I still keep the photos, just in case. Then I do the same when I return it. That way if - at any point - they say I damaged the car, I have timestamped photos.
It feels like an obvious, easy way to cover my arse if there's a dispute. Otherwise you're basically screwed if they claim you got the car scratched up.
I'm really surprised other people don't do that. Its what my family has done from before we even had digital cameras.
I do the same, but it didn't help me - Hertz charged me for several hundred dollars while I was flying back home, the same day after dropping off the car.
Turns out, you can send them all the pictures you like - all they did was send me a work order for scratches + repaint in a poorly specified location, with no comment on the pictures. No amount of emails or phone calls asking them to indicate where on the car was supposedly scratched led to anything - I just got passed around and around...
If my credit card insurance didn't cover it (Chase reimbursed me in full relatively easily), I would have taken the next step and did a chargeback. Maybe it would have been helpful if I needed to press the issue. But the presence of some tens of pictures between me and my wife didn't seem to accomplish much
Your mistake was renting with Hertz. This is the same company that literally got their customers arrested for grand theft auto due to negligently reporting cars stolen that had in fact not been stolen.
All rental car companies devolve into poorly-run scams. My pet theory is they're actually renting the cars at a loss to stay competitive, and then they need to con the money back to stay afloat.
It's always good to have that paper trail for if it indeed does end up as a real dispute. Not car rental but a similar experience with eBay where a scammer shipped an item to an address in my city but not mine, apparently a common technique. I had DHL's email confirming this, and if thinking I doctored it it isn't a difficult call to DHL to verify, but all claims to both ebay and Paypal were denied despite definite proof. More than half a year later I finally got the charge back presumably thanks to having the paper trail for the credit card company.
Naturally I closed both accounts after this experience (the whole point of PayPal was to have protection in these cases...) but I suspect almost all companies are optimized for reducing support costs even if it means just a few lost customers.
If it went to arbitration, the photos would have helped. At the end of the day, it’s not really up to hertz whether hertz is breaking the law. It’s up to the small claims court. (Or whatever it’s called in your part of the world).
Whether you can be bothered or not is of course another question.
I've never had that happen. In most cases, the rental company "eats" the cost of normal wear and tear. This is what causes a car to depreciate after all.
Is the rental company actually getting the repairs done? If not, then they're double dipping: Depreciating the car, and charging the customer.
And I know they're not getting the repairs done, because when I rent a car, they show me a list of the dings that it's already sustained.
> An employee reviews the report only if a customer flags an issue after receiving the bill. She added that fewer than 3 percent of vehicles scanned by the A.I. system show any billable damage.
> They were charged $195: $80 for the damage and $115 in fees, including those incurred “as a result of processing” the damage claim and the “cost to detect and estimate the damage” that occurred during the rental. Hertz offered to reduce the charge to $130 if they paid within one day.
Yea, that's just a scam. Charging fees for charging fees.
This will obviously settle down into something reasonable over time, it’s as bad as it will be right now. Renting cars is a competitive business and to the extent it isn’t (mostly via the chokepoint of airport parking garage leases), that's always been true.
(Of course, NYT writing an article and people being mad is part of that settling to reasonableness process)
If you are renting a car abroad then check your travel insurance as it may cover any excesses. The one I just bought for the UK covers up to $5000 excess so exceeds the CDW. Of course I always do a once around the car with the phone before and after rental which I am sure everyone does these days
I had the automatic insurance and got a flat ten miles outside of anchorage. Before cell phones. No way was I getting out of the car as it was dark and I was worried about things like a large moose. I drove the car back with a very smoking rim and happily turned the car in.
Then 20 yrs later, I rented from hertz a car with balding tires with the steel belts showing thru the worn tires. I did not catch that, as the garage I reviewed the car was DARK. Unfortunately, my destination did not have a nearby Hertz location. My mother in law entered the picture and after several “may I speak to your supervisor” we escalated pretty high and the next day, a flatbed truck showed up with a car for me and they took the other away.
This should lower rental rates by encouraging more careful driving and reducing vehicle damage. Fewer repairs mean lower overall costs, which everyone would otherwise pay through higher rates.
The past two times I rented a car, I later received a bill from the rental company for supposedly unpaid tolls (plus fees) that I had most definitely paid.
Renting a car with any liability exposure is a recipe for frustration. As far as I'm concerned, these scans mean that one will be billed if they legally can be. Regardless of actually accruing damage.
Classic MBA scam. Hertz dont own the cars outright, they borrow money to pay for them. So they have an interest in driving down the value of the cars so they can refinance at lower costs. Then, on the income side, they'll be gouging customers for fees to cover damage (or take out curiously expensive damage insurance). It's a continual shakedown and I imagine there were high fives all around when the Finance intern came up with the idea.
Of course, Hertz has been a dumpster fire of a business for the last five years. Burning billions on electric vehicles, torching the share price, switching CEOs, not to mention falsely accsuing customers of theft. Maybe best to stay away from them for a bit.
You have part of it but miss the whole picture. Hertz doesn't want to do business with "poor's." Its part of the bigger continuing stratification of classes. Unless you represent a company account with over $500 million in market cap (or gob) in which case you can negotiate actual Fair terms with them. Or a rich enough to pay enough that the rental costs equal to or greater than paying for the car's monthly cost outright. They simply don't want to do business with you. And they will get what they want because this country is ruled by corporations.
Providing a good or service with a profit margin is so old fashioned what is this 1920? Nowadays you use your big MBA brain to do a business with another big brain MBA that also has rich parents that your parents are friends with. Then both ride away from the smoldering rubble of the company on their yachts when their options vest in 3-5 years.
Because if you are a big brain MBA you know that is about how long it takes for your yacht to be constructed
An act of civil disobedience that I absolutely wouldn't condone might be causing significant damage in the parking lot before you get to the outbound scanner, or after you pass through the inbound scanner.
The same way they handle it when a vandal does it to a random car at a Walmart parking lot. Nothing at all until one day the manufacturers put sentry mode on every car instead of just Teslas.
always take the loss damage waiver when renting a car. While your insurance may cover repairs it most likely doesn't cover loss-of-use for the rental company. This means you may be liable for paying to keep the car rented while its being repaired.
https://archive.ph/NhhzB
How does that hold up? If I return the car, the attendant inspects it, and I go home... then later I receive a bill about a scratch that the attendant didn't point out and that I cannot possibly inspect on the car... why would I possibly pay up? How could anyone litigate if I disagree and the car has been rented again?
It would make a lot more sense to scan the car immediately when I return it, point out the damage, and bill me right there. I don't think that is what they do though? Is the scanner in another location?
IMO this is exactly how it works without the Ai already. I have had a pleasure of renting a plentitude of cars all over the world, and would say that in 10-15% cases there will be reason to withhold or try to withdraw money for “various car damages”, “traffic violations”, “empty gas tank”, .. It doesn’t matter if this is pre-war Ukraine, spain, turkey, small company, large corp,.. Now they just have a tool for that.
Psa: in most places they would try to scam you by removing a small piece of trim (under the rearview mirror, below bumper,..) and on your return claim it as a damage. That’s why you need to take a video and pics while taking the car. This trick saved me probably tens of thousands of dollars by now.
Don't worry, they'll probably make signing up for binding arbitration part of the rental agreement, conveniently having the arbitration decided by someone who sides with the company 99% of the time. It's all good though. They're certainly not scamming you.
Lately it feels like the most reputable and large companies are even running scams. The US feels filled to the brim with incredibly convoluted scams. We're innovating new ways to scam people out of their money every other day.
Man, just sell a product or service and be normal.
People voted for that. Somehow they hate regulation and love to give companies all that freedom to scam them.
It's pretty funny to contrast these practices against things IRBs can require. IRBs require informed consent and often require the entire "contract" be read aloud verbatim (no summarization) to people. This incentivizes making things as short and easy to comprehend has possible. Furthermore the IRB will decide whether the agreement is compressible to the intended audience.
Whereas in tech the opposite is true. The goal is to get people to agree to something they do not understand. This incentivizes long confusing walls of text and convoluted language so that people just click without reading.
Ultimately the difference is that when push comes to shove tech has not been required to prove people even read (much less understand) what they are signing.
What's weird is not that companies would want to try to be greedy, but how society has socially normalized not even reading important, binding legal contracts with real consequences, and just signing them without much, if any, serious consideration of the ramifications of what we're agreeing to.
What's actually weird is how society normalized binding contracts that are far too long to be reasonably read by the people they are supposed to be binding to.
A well functioning legal system would throw out everything in those contracts on that basis alone.
Because it doesn't actually matter. A single click EULA won't hold up in court if they've actually done wrong. And even without a single click EULA you still weren't gonna win a coin toss lawsuit against a megacorp. So for most people it's a wash.
If you buy a latte at a coffee chain and you use their app to pay, you've probably agreed to a hundred page agreement that they reserve the right to change at any time, and which subjects you to binding arbitration, perhaps even if you decide to hand the barista a $10 note.
Disney recently tried to use the terms and conditions of a Disney+ subscription to get out of a claim arising from their theme parks.
Automation has made it so easy to bury society in legally binding click-through contracts. It's very unclear what innovation or business model the general public would be deprived of if we severely limited click-through agreements, or even wet signature contracts below certain thresholds.
I don't have Apple's app store or the Google Play Store on my phone. When it comes to Dr's offices and the like asking me to download an app, I just tell them I don't have a smartphone and don't want one.
> How could anyone litigate if I disagree and the car has been rented again?
The scans are evidence. Whether the are sufficient evidence to overcome whatever counterevidence you can provide (the civil standard of proof for liability being a preponderance of the evidence, not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for criminal liability) is a matter that would be decided at trial (or, more likely, arbitration.)
Why not do it via cellphone ?
You drive thru scanner on pickup and return. The scummy pay the bill today message comes after you get on the airplane and return home.
The Hertz from this article is a company you should never do business with, unless you like getting falsely accused of a felony, arrested, and imprisoned for no reason:
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/06/1140998674/hertz-false-accusa...
I personally use other companies when I rent a car... but I'm also paranoid about the kind of nonsense described in the article, so I just buy the damage coverage when I rent the car. It means renting a car is far more expensive than it should be, but it saved my bacon the last time I rented when someone dinged the paint.
It's funny that the AI bogeyman is used in the article to make this new tech seem scarier. The problem is the general practice of trying to milk you for money over regular wear and tear.
I'm an Avis person myself, and their response at the bottom of the article gives me a little hope that they've at least thought about this tech for more than 8 seconds. I once drove into the rental center with part of the car dragging along the ground, as it had been for the past 100ish miles. The conversation was as follows:
Avis employee: "Sounds like you got part of the car dragging."
Me: "Yeah I noticed that."
Avis employee: "Don't worry about it, here's your receipt."
I've always been told while renting a car that any dent/ding smaller than a golf ball was considered wear and tear, and I've never had a problem over at least 50 car rentals.
However, I've always noticed that Hertz is very dependent on the particular branch you rent from, and I generally avoid them unless I have met the general manager for the location and gotten to know them. In that case, it's been the _best_ company I've used. Otherwise, I stay far, far away. Enterprise seems more consistent.
I wonder if Hertz will someday pivot into making donuts at this rate.
I personally had a terrible experience with Enterprise. They were great right up until they tried to pass off preexisting damage as something I had done (it was odd damage to the roof, which I couldn't see prior to taking the car without a stool or something), based on no evidence. They wanted me to pay over 2k for repairs, and I fought and fought to see their "evidence" and get it overturned all while they said "the investigation is already complete" and insisted I pay the damages immediately. I managed to find an agent that finally showed me there was no evidence. When I told them I would file a complaint to the Better Business Bureau I got an email within hours dropping the claim with many apologies, and a personal call from the manager who had been impossible to get a hold of prior to this. It was a relief but I am disgusted by the whole debacle. The nice salesperson front drops away quickly when they say you owe them a claim, then they become a nightmare to deal with. Personally I will never rent from them again.
If you ever do rent a car, make sure to take a good video around the car, of the roof, and the underside and inside for good measure.
It takes a lot to shock me these days, but you definitely succeeded. That's just fucking crazy.
Like you, I always pay for the insurance. It just makes sense.
All three times I’ve attempted to use hertz since 2021, I’ve shown up with a reservation only to be told they have no cars. Their overbooking policy appears to be “yes”. Even without this bullshit they aren’t worth touching.
I don’t think they even know what a reservation is!
Obligatory link for the lucky ten thousand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2GmGSNvaM
The ultimate goal is to intimidate renters into purchasing as much insurance (Collision Damage Waiver, Liability, etc.) as possible, effectively doubling the cost of a daily rental.
Exactly, companies favorite thing thing to sell is nothing at all. Subscriptions, insurance, service fees...
Fairly-priced insurance for this sort of thing is available for much closer to its actuarial value—that is to say, much cheaper than at the rental car counter. So cheap, in fact, that in the US, surprisingly many consumer credit cards toss in some sort of rental car insurance at no charge—good wherever, whenever, and however often (within reason). Without even so much as a driving history check.
For that matter, the car rental firms routinely bundle damage waivers/insurance products into their volume/corporate contracts and still arrive at prices below the retail base rates.
I don't think it's the insurance itself that's being sold here at all. It's more more predatory than that: it's the kind of price discrimination that squeezes a premium for "peace of mind" from the segment of their retail trade who are nervous, inexperienced, risk-averse, or financially unable to accept the small risk of an expensive event. Like a payday loan—it's spectacularly expensive to be poor.
The small print (of my card) mentions a maximum vehicle value. Every time I’ve asked for the vehicle’s value when renting abroad, it’s been higher than the card’s maximum.
You come out ahead very quickly getting a credit card that will cover the rental car (e.g. a Chase Sapphire Preferred) and paying the annual fee instead of buying insurance through the rental car company.
There are tons of cards with no annual fees that offer collision damage waiver too.
I've never seen a no-annual-fee card that covers loss of use though. No-annual-fee card damage waivers are also typically secondary to your personal insurance (meaning you have to make a claim and your rates could go up), while the CSP's insurance is primary so your personal insurance is not involved at all.
This is being framed all dystopian, but I'm not so pessimistic.
The current process is ridiculous - a random teenager in a vest with 15 minutes of training inspects the car when you check it out, and then you get a former drill sergeant when you check it back in. The current process is no less fair and Hertz is no less evil - but in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available.
> The current process is no less fair and Hertz is no less evil - but in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available.
I don't think it's impartial: the implication here is that the same technology is not available to the renter, so Hertz can easily claim damage that was already present at checkout that an ordinary customer picture can't refute. That asymmetry seems bad to me.
That's weird, because when I rent a car, I take photos and videos and I make sure to have a attendant write down the damage on the rental paper before I drive away.
Is basic ass covering weird?
> Is basic ass covering weird?
The point was that basic ass covering isn't good enough; my visual scan and phone photos aren't going to match what a machine designed to find defects can do.
(I think everyone does - or at least should do - what you do. I certainly do.)
I would need examples of the defects that this machine would find that a) would matter enough to bother with and b) not be something a human could bring up arbitrarily too if they happened to not like me.
This is a lot more complicated than assuming that a machine will find things more consistently than a ~minimum wage employee, especially if the latter isn't motivated to screw you.
(It's also far from the original point, which is purely about symmetry.)
In theory if the success rate is high enough, it will find more than most humans will.
Edit: And as another poster said, this means they get to double dip by depreciating the asset and charging the customer for that wear.
Unless you carry a dent repair light in a darkened room, you're not matching their level of detail fwiw
If you put most people's cars under those lights you'd be shocked at how much damage you'd find.
> in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available.
Whenever I rent a car, after getting the keys I walk around the car and take photos of it on my phone from every angle. If I notice any scratches or dents, I tell them. But I still keep the photos, just in case. Then I do the same when I return it. That way if - at any point - they say I damaged the car, I have timestamped photos.
It feels like an obvious, easy way to cover my arse if there's a dispute. Otherwise you're basically screwed if they claim you got the car scratched up.
I'm really surprised other people don't do that. Its what my family has done from before we even had digital cameras.
I do the same, but it didn't help me - Hertz charged me for several hundred dollars while I was flying back home, the same day after dropping off the car.
Turns out, you can send them all the pictures you like - all they did was send me a work order for scratches + repaint in a poorly specified location, with no comment on the pictures. No amount of emails or phone calls asking them to indicate where on the car was supposedly scratched led to anything - I just got passed around and around...
If my credit card insurance didn't cover it (Chase reimbursed me in full relatively easily), I would have taken the next step and did a chargeback. Maybe it would have been helpful if I needed to press the issue. But the presence of some tens of pictures between me and my wife didn't seem to accomplish much
Your mistake was renting with Hertz. This is the same company that literally got their customers arrested for grand theft auto due to negligently reporting cars stolen that had in fact not been stolen.
All rental car companies devolve into poorly-run scams. My pet theory is they're actually renting the cars at a loss to stay competitive, and then they need to con the money back to stay afloat.
Yeah but only Hertz mistakenly put many their customers in Jail. That’s a whole other level of incompetence.
It's always good to have that paper trail for if it indeed does end up as a real dispute. Not car rental but a similar experience with eBay where a scammer shipped an item to an address in my city but not mine, apparently a common technique. I had DHL's email confirming this, and if thinking I doctored it it isn't a difficult call to DHL to verify, but all claims to both ebay and Paypal were denied despite definite proof. More than half a year later I finally got the charge back presumably thanks to having the paper trail for the credit card company.
Naturally I closed both accounts after this experience (the whole point of PayPal was to have protection in these cases...) but I suspect almost all companies are optimized for reducing support costs even if it means just a few lost customers.
If it went to arbitration, the photos would have helped. At the end of the day, it’s not really up to hertz whether hertz is breaking the law. It’s up to the small claims court. (Or whatever it’s called in your part of the world).
Whether you can be bothered or not is of course another question.
I've never had that happen. In most cases, the rental company "eats" the cost of normal wear and tear. This is what causes a car to depreciate after all.
Is the rental company actually getting the repairs done? If not, then they're double dipping: Depreciating the car, and charging the customer.
And I know they're not getting the repairs done, because when I rent a car, they show me a list of the dings that it's already sustained.
> An employee reviews the report only if a customer flags an issue after receiving the bill. She added that fewer than 3 percent of vehicles scanned by the A.I. system show any billable damage.
> They were charged $195: $80 for the damage and $115 in fees, including those incurred “as a result of processing” the damage claim and the “cost to detect and estimate the damage” that occurred during the rental. Hertz offered to reduce the charge to $130 if they paid within one day.
Yea, that's just a scam. Charging fees for charging fees.
Lest there remained any question as to whether one should do business with Hertz...
Remember when they were a prestige brand?
> Remember when they were a prestige brand?
Unfortunate overlap with when their commercials featured OJ Simpson.
This will obviously settle down into something reasonable over time, it’s as bad as it will be right now. Renting cars is a competitive business and to the extent it isn’t (mostly via the chokepoint of airport parking garage leases), that's always been true.
(Of course, NYT writing an article and people being mad is part of that settling to reasonableness process)
If you are renting a car abroad then check your travel insurance as it may cover any excesses. The one I just bought for the UK covers up to $5000 excess so exceeds the CDW. Of course I always do a once around the car with the phone before and after rental which I am sure everyone does these days
I had the automatic insurance and got a flat ten miles outside of anchorage. Before cell phones. No way was I getting out of the car as it was dark and I was worried about things like a large moose. I drove the car back with a very smoking rim and happily turned the car in.
Then 20 yrs later, I rented from hertz a car with balding tires with the steel belts showing thru the worn tires. I did not catch that, as the garage I reviewed the car was DARK. Unfortunately, my destination did not have a nearby Hertz location. My mother in law entered the picture and after several “may I speak to your supervisor” we escalated pretty high and the next day, a flatbed truck showed up with a car for me and they took the other away.
This should lower rental rates by encouraging more careful driving and reducing vehicle damage. Fewer repairs mean lower overall costs, which everyone would otherwise pay through higher rates.
The past two times I rented a car, I later received a bill from the rental company for supposedly unpaid tolls (plus fees) that I had most definitely paid.
Renting a car with any liability exposure is a recipe for frustration. As far as I'm concerned, these scans mean that one will be billed if they legally can be. Regardless of actually accruing damage.
Classic MBA scam. Hertz dont own the cars outright, they borrow money to pay for them. So they have an interest in driving down the value of the cars so they can refinance at lower costs. Then, on the income side, they'll be gouging customers for fees to cover damage (or take out curiously expensive damage insurance). It's a continual shakedown and I imagine there were high fives all around when the Finance intern came up with the idea.
Of course, Hertz has been a dumpster fire of a business for the last five years. Burning billions on electric vehicles, torching the share price, switching CEOs, not to mention falsely accsuing customers of theft. Maybe best to stay away from them for a bit.
You have part of it but miss the whole picture. Hertz doesn't want to do business with "poor's." Its part of the bigger continuing stratification of classes. Unless you represent a company account with over $500 million in market cap (or gob) in which case you can negotiate actual Fair terms with them. Or a rich enough to pay enough that the rental costs equal to or greater than paying for the car's monthly cost outright. They simply don't want to do business with you. And they will get what they want because this country is ruled by corporations.
Providing a good or service with a profit margin is so old fashioned what is this 1920? Nowadays you use your big MBA brain to do a business with another big brain MBA that also has rich parents that your parents are friends with. Then both ride away from the smoldering rubble of the company on their yachts when their options vest in 3-5 years.
Because if you are a big brain MBA you know that is about how long it takes for your yacht to be constructed
An act of civil disobedience that I absolutely wouldn't condone might be causing significant damage in the parking lot before you get to the outbound scanner, or after you pass through the inbound scanner.
How would they handle that?
Likely calling the police for vandalism after observing and recording this act on surveillance.
The same way they handle it when a vandal does it to a random car at a Walmart parking lot. Nothing at all until one day the manufacturers put sentry mode on every car instead of just Teslas.
always take the loss damage waiver when renting a car. While your insurance may cover repairs it most likely doesn't cover loss-of-use for the rental company. This means you may be liable for paying to keep the car rented while its being repaired.
Don’t use Hertz
Or Sixt who does AI scanning also.
If your car breaks down away from a major airport, you need to tow it back because Sixt only operates at airports in certain states.
Yup. Market forces at work here, folks.
as long as I get the same tool, or there is a clearer chronology of when the ding occurred between rentals
this is a test run to see how humans revolt against the machines. valuable data will be procured
Really I wonder how.
https://archive.ph/NhhzB
[dead]