This Is What Happens When Hertz's AI Scanner Finds Damage on Your Rental
The latest car news, reviews, and features.
Back in April, we reported on how Hertz was planning to employ artificial intelligence to scan vehicles before and after renters use them, to check for damages and issue associated charges. The AI system has been live now for a few months at select locations around the country, and one customer of Hertz-owned Thrifty reached out to The Drive to share his experience after one of the company's scanners caught damage on his rental. Mind you, it wasn't exactly an experience he enjoyed.
A reader named Patrick recently rented a Volkswagen from Hertz's location at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta, which was in fact the first store nationwide to use the tech. When he returned the car, he did so with a 1-inch scuff on the driver's side rear wheel. Patrick says he was alerted to the damage 'minutes' after dropping the VW off, and with it, charges for the blemish: $250 for the repair, $125 for processing, and another $65 administrative fee. That's $440 all told, for curb rash on one wheel.
This is all relayed to renters like Patrick over a web app, and while it's easy to guess what the repair fee is for, the other two are a bit more vague on the surface. Hertz defines the processing fee as 'the cost to detect and estimate the damage that occurred during your rental.' The admin fee, meanwhile, 'covers a portion of the costs [Hertz incurs] as a result of processing your claim.' Hertz is working with UVeye for this tech, an Israel-based company that is wholly focused on deploying AI to automate vehicle inspections. This is what Patrick saw on his phone when he was presented with proof of damage. Courtesy Patrick
The web app presents customers with proof of the damage spotted by UVeye's scanners, and allows them to compare that against an image of the same portion of the vehicle before they drove it. When Patrick was served with the bill, he was given the option to pay it right away. But here's what's interesting: He says Hertz was offering a $52 discount if he agreed to the terms and paid within two days, or a $32.50 discount if he paid within a week.
Patrick told The Drive that he wanted to inquire about the charge. Unfortunately, the chatbot system that Hertz uses for handling damage claims doesn't currently allow a live, human agent to enter the conversation. What it can do is flag a claim, so that an agent reviews it later. After that point, an agent may reach out to the customer to discuss the issue, or the customer could ring up Thrifty's normal support hotline to talk to a rep there. But that option wasn't made clear to Patrick on the site, so he followed a 'Contact Us' link to send Thrifty an email, which can take up to 10 days for a response. Remember: The discount only stands if you pay in seven days. Another example of UVeye's post-return condition report. UVeye
The Drive reached out to Hertz to inquire about Patrick's case, and ask some questions about Hertz's AI scanning policies at large. A representative responded with the following statement: 'The vast majority of rentals are incident-free. When damage does occur, our goal is to enhance the rental experience by bringing greater transparency, precision, and speed to the process. Digital vehicle inspections help deliver on that with clear, detailed documentation that is delivered more quickly, as well as a more technology-enabled resolution process.'
One of the questions I asked Hertz that the company didn't answer was whether fees for customers who have incidents are higher when renting vehicles from Hertz stores that use UVeye scanners, as opposed to those that don't. You'd think they would be more expensive, if indeed the processing fee pertains to 'the cost to detect and estimate' blemishes sustained during rentals. As it stands, Hertz has no listed prices on its website for estimates of what different kinds of damage typically cost, so customers are kind of in the dark about this stuff until it happens.
At the time of publication, Patrick said he hadn't paid yet and wouldn't take the discount because 'saving $30 to accept responsibility is not worth it,' he told me over email. High-end rentals sit at a Hertz lot in San Francisco International Airport.Hertz using AI in this way represents new practices and protocols for the industry, and it's something consumers will need time to adjust to. The company claims UVeye's tech increases transparency when it comes to damage claims and, sure—you can see exactly what the scanners caught, and the turnaround is clearly quick. But this system has arguably introduced opacity when customers can't easily talk to a live agent for questions or concerns, and the software is encouraging them to pay up as quickly as possible.
I'd argue it would go a long way for Hertz to incorporate live agents into its chatbot system, to ease some of the friction here. But whether or not it does, Patrick's experience is the kind many car renters will likely have in increasing numbers, as more companies follow Hertz's lead and incorporate AI into these inspections. As for Hertz itself, it expects to have scanners up and running at 100 of its roughly 1,600 U.S. airport locations by the end of this year.
Got tips? Send 'em to tips@thedrive.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
21 minutes ago
- CBS News
"eBay for government" helps agencies and schools auction off property, Municibid founder says
A little slice of land in Ambridge Borough could be yours at a steep discount, and all the proceeds will benefit the local community. "We're like an eBay for government," said Greg Berry, CEO and founder of online government auction site Municibid. Berry says his company helps local governments auction off anything, from parcels of land and old desks to school buses and riding mowers. So far, about 7,000 local governments and schools use the online site to sell unneeded items to the public. The latest listing in Ambridge consists of a nearly 4,000-square-foot parcel of land along Glenwood Drive. Twenty-two bids have already been placed at just over $5,000. "A lot of times, smaller towns, and larger ones, have excess land or land that they've come into own in some form, and they don't have a need for it and they're looking to sell it," said Berry. He said maybe in this case, a neighbor wants to expand or a new park could pop up in the space. Berry says governments sell just about everything on his site. "While it's typically vehicles and heavy equipment and tools and land and things that you might expect the government to have and no longer need, it could be anything, such as sailboats and airplanes and jewelry and electric guitars," Berry said. Municibid allows consumers to sort and shop by state, borough or category. And when a winner scores a deal, here's how the costs break down. "When the auction closes and there's a winning bidder, the winning bidder pays us 9% of the winning bid amount, and then they pay 100% of the bid amount to the selling agency," Berry said. Gone are the days of going to the town hall to fill out a sealed bid. Berry told KDKA he used to work as a borough councilor and found that process far from transparent. "No one knew what the governments were selling, and if they did, the process was super inconvenient and intimidating and just wasn't very easy," said Berry. Besides the Ambridge property, KDKA found a lot of items up for grabs in the Pittsburgh area, including an ATV in Mt. Lebanon, a 2020 Ford Explorer in Castle Shannon, a Ford Crown Victoria police car in New Castle, and golf carts in Greensburg. Berry told KDKA some parents snag their teenagers' first car on the site, or business owners land some needed equipment at a fraction of the price.
Forbes
23 minutes ago
- Forbes
Crisis Averted—But What Was The Section 899 Revenge Tax Proposal?
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivers remarks during the ... More International Finance Institute Global Outlook Forum at the Willard InterContinental Washington on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. The forum is being held alongside the 2025 spring meetings of the World Bank Group (WBG) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). (Photo by) There are myriad ways to express displeasure with international tax policy: you can file a complaint at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), leverage a charm offensive, or, if you're looking for a quick fix, you can slap a retaliatory tax on foreign investors, spook the market, and call it a day. The Trump administration opted for the latter—albeit briefly—with the seemingly now-defunct Section 899 provision, branded by some as the 'revenge tax.' This provision, tucked into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, levied a targeted tax meant to punish countries that impose 'discriminatory' taxes on American firms – particularly tech giants. Now however, after some handshakes and a flurry of posts on social media, it seems the revenge tax has been scrapped. Quietly scuttled, its political usefulness exhausted—for now. What Was the Section 899 'Revenge Tax?' At its core, Section 899 was a legislative jab aimed squarely at America's trading partners. Buried in the GOP's sweeping policy bill, the provision would have authorized the U.S. to impose punitive taxes on companies headquartered in countries that were, in the view of the Trump administration, treating American firms unfairly. The sweeping new section of the tax code would have been titled 'Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes'—not exactly a subtle start. Section 899 didn't go after governments that it felt had treated U.S. firms unfairly, but instead targeted people and businesses with ties to 'discriminatory foreign countries.' That included foreign individuals, corporations not majority-owned by U.S. persons, private foundations and trusts, and just about any other foreign partnership or structure that Treasury didn't like the looks of. The goal was clear: foreign investors from offending jurisdictions were going to be made to feel real economic pain. The core mechanism was an annual ratcheting-up of tax rates by 5% on the U.S. income of 'applicable persons' – everything from dividends and royalties to capital gains and even real estate sales. Exceptions were few – the legislation even explicitly overrode Section 892, which exempts sovereign wealth funds from taxation. The triggering mechanism for the tax was any broadly-defined 'unfair foreign tax,' which included the Undertaxed Profits Rule from OECD's Pillar 2, Digital Services Taxes (DSTs), and any other tax Treasury later deemed discriminatory or deliberately burdensome to U.S. persons. In sum, it would have been sweeping. If passed, Section 899 would have been a weaponization of the tax code into a tool of transparent foreign policy enforcement. It would have marked a sea change in international tax policy, shifting tax rates away from economics and towards the punishment of deemed foreign policy sins. What Prompted this 'Revenge?' Likely the most salient policy shift that triggered this revenge tax was the OECD's Pillar 2. Championed by the Biden administration, Pillar 2 aims to impose a 15% global minimum tax on the profits of multinationals—regardless of where they are headquartered or what markets they serve. On paper, it was intended to end the race to the bottom of low-tax jurisdictions; in practice, it creates a complex web of policies and enforcement rules that can allow foreign governments to tax U.S. companies in situations where the U.S. does not. The Undertaxed Profits Rule allows other countries to claim the ability to tax if a company's home jurisdiction does not sufficiently tax its own domestic entities. Think of it as a foreign state saying, well, if you aren't going to tax your companies at 15%, we'll gladly make up the difference for you. To the Trump administration, this was unacceptable—a path to the European Union skimming revenue from American companies. The final straw was likely the imposition of DSTs—levies aimed at the revenue of tech giants like Meta and Google, often imposed by European countries that have grown tired of waiting for the U.S. to sign on to Pillar 2. Of course, countries considering and ultimately passing DSTs were merely exercising their right to tax American companies selling into their markets—but that is neither here nor there. Why Section 899 Was a Problem—And Why It Died For all its bluster, Section 899 had one main flaw: it was bad policy masquerading as tough politics. From the moment the bill hit the docket, or more accurately folks found it swimming around in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, alarms went off across the market. As it turns out, foreign investment doesn't like uncertainty. Section 899 would have injected a lot of uncertainty into the foreign investment market. The tax hikes weren't automatic, and there was no schedule that could be consulted by any one individual state; they turned on vague determinations like what was and wasn't an 'unfair tax.' Treasury could label a state a discriminatory foreign country based on opaque criteria and ramp up rates immediately—all without Congress lifting a finger. As is to be expected, trade groups warned of chilling effects on capital markets. Foreign governments viewed it as a backdoor sanctions regime. So it died – not with a bang, but with a post. Scott Bessent publicly called for the provision's removal, citing diplomatic progress. The death of the Revenge Tax doesn't mean this particular international tax skirmish is over, however, only that the battle was paused temporarily in favor of diplomacy. If global talks stall, or DSTs raise their heads again, no one should be surprised if a future Congress pulls out this playbook again.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bloomin' Brands drafts industry vet for CIO role
This story was originally published on CIO Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily CIO Dive newsletter. Bloomin' Brands will add Rafael Sanchez to its leadership team as SVP and CIO, effective June 30, the company said Tuesday. The executive most recently served as SVP of IT at Atlanta-headquartered Davidson Hospitality Group. He also held senior technology leadership roles at Six Flags, Feld Entertainment, Carnival Corporation and Burger King. Sanchez's appointment comes less than a year after the company elevated SVP of Technology Gagan Sinha to the CIO role. Sinha served as SVP of IT at fast-food franchise company Inspire Brands prior to joining Bloomin' Brands, which operates Outback Steakhouse, Carrabba's Italian Grill, Bonefish Grill and Fleming's Prime Steakhouse and Wine Bar, in April 2024. The restaurant industry is doubling down on technology at a time when flagging consumer spending and trade policy uncertainty are taking a bite out of the bottom line. Restaurant chains had one of the worst quarters since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to kick off 2025, according to Restaurant Dive. Bloomin' Brands executives touted the company's efforts to use AI and a new point of sale system to improve customer and employee experience across its four casual dining chains, during a May earnings call. The company's new CIO has experience beefing up hospitality operations technologies, Bloomin' Brands CEO Mike Spanos said in the announcement. 'Rafael has a strong history in out-of-home entertainment and restaurants,' said Spanos. 'He is a strong leader that focuses on the team members and guests.' Spanos' appointment adds to a growing list of IT leadership changes, marking the annual midyear tech executive shuffle. McDonald's announced a role swap last week between U.S. CIO Whitney McGinnis and Valerie Ashbaugh, SVP, commercial products and platforms. Ascent Hospitality Management, which is responsible for Huddle House and Perkins, welcomed a new tech chief earlier this month. In May, Fat Brands tapped Jack in the Box CIO and SVP Drew Martin as its IT chief. Recommended Reading Walgreens CIO Hsiao Wang out amidst C-suite shakeup
