Somehow,
Hertz
continues
to
be
an
ongoing
concern,
in
both
senses
of
the
word.
The
company
that
made itself
infamous by
repeatedly
trying
to
get innocent
renters
arrested for
car
theft
tried
to
put
all
of
that
behind
it
with
a $168
million class-action
lawsuit
settlement
in
2022.
The
company
then
pledged
to
do
better
going
forward.
It
didn’t
say how it
was
going
to
do
this,
since
it
apparently
wasn’t
going
to
address
underlying
issues,
like
branches’
willingness
to outsource
vehicle
retrieval to
law
enforcement
and
the
extremely sloppy
inventory
control procedures
that
led
to
employees
filing
theft
reports
for
vehicles
that were
parked
in
their
parking
lots.
Since
then,
Hertz
has
found
new
ways
to
be
awful, like
charging
Tesla
renters
fees to
refill
their
returned
rentals
with gasoline.
Then
there’s
this
incident, first
reported
by
travel
site
One
Mile
at
a
Time,
which
details the
ridiculous
interaction
one
renter had
with
the
company
when
a
Hertz
rep
tried
to
charge
him
$10,000
for
driving
“too
many”
miles
with
his
Unlimited
Miles
rental.
Long
story
short,
it
would
appear
that
someone
rented
a
Hertz
car
for
a
month,
and
the
rental
allowed
unlimited
miles.
The
man
drove
25,000
miles
on
the
car
over
the
course
of
that
month,
and
the
agency
wasn’t
happy
about
it.
Given
the
number
of
miles
driven,
the
Hertz
representative
stated
that
he
would
charge
the
man’s
credit
card
an
extra
$10,000.
As
the
interaction
goes:
Hertz
representative:
“You
need
to
leave,
sir.”
Customer:
“But
you’re
going
to
charge
this
to
$10,000
to
my
credit?”
Hertz
representative:
“Yes.”
Customer:
“When
this
literally,
that’s
not
even
allowed.
I
never
signed…”
Hertz
representative:
“You
show
me
where
it
says
I
can’t
charge
it.”
Customer:
“Right
here,
it
literally
says
I
won’t
get
charged
anything,
it
says
miles
allowed,
free
miles,
it
literally
says
to
refer
to
this
if
there’s
anything
extra.
I’ve
never
signed
anything
saying
I
can
only
go
100
miles
a
day,
or
anything
like
that,
or
that
I
would
have
to
pay
more.”
Hertz
representative:
“But
you
also
never
signed
anything
saying
you
were
going
to
be
allowed
to
drive
25,000
miles
in
a
month.”
Customer:
“No,
unlimited
is
100,000
miles.”
Hertz
representative:
“No
it
is
not.”
While
25,000
miles
seems
like
a
literally
impossible
number
of
miles
to
drive
in
30
days,
nothing
in
the
contract
stated
the
“unlimited
miles”
the
customer
was
entitled
to
was
actually
limited
in
any
way.
What
made
this
worse
is
that
the
Hertz
rep
told
the
man
he
was
going
to
ding
his
credit
card
for
$10,000.
Then
he
told
him
to
leave.
Understandably,
the
renter
didn’t
leave,
because
doing
so
meant
he’d
soon
be
out
$10,000.
When
he
refused
to
leave
before
this
was
resolved,
the
rep
told
him
he
was
going
to
have
him
arrested.
As
One
Mile
at
a
Time
points
out,
there’s
nothing
in
Hertz
Unlimited
Miles
contracts
that
puts
a
limit
on
miles.
Nor
is
there
any
clause
that
allows
them
to
charge
customers
just
because
the
company
(or
the
rep
handling
the
return)
might
feel
the
number
of
miles
driven
is
excessive.
Hertz
is
free
to
refuse
to
rent
cars
to
customers
who’ve
put
“too
many”
(whatever
that
means)
miles
on
the
vehicles
they’ve
rented,
but
it
can’t
pretend
the
contract
says
something
it
doesn’t
just
because
someone
has
accomplished
the
astounding
feet
of
racking
up
four
months
worth
of
mileage
in
a
single
month.
Hertz
has
since
issued
a
statement about
this
incident.
And,
considering
the
source,
it’s
a
pretty
ok
apology
for
an
insanely
ridiculous
incident.
“Customer
satisfaction
is
our
top
priority
at
Hertz,
and
we
sincerely
regret
this
customer’s
experience
at
one
of
our
franchise
locations,”
Hertz’s
statement
reads.
“Per
the
terms
of
the
contract,
the
customer
will
not
be
billed
for
mileage.
Our
franchisee
is
addressing
the
employee’s
conduct
and
reinforcing
our
customer
service
standards
and
policies
to
ensure
they
are
understood
and
followed
consistently
across
our
locations.”
Never
mind.
It’s
not
even
really
an
apology.
It
simply
says
Hertz
will
not
charge
someone
$10,000
for not violating
the
terms
of
the
rental
contract.
That
there’s
some
“addressing”
going
on
at
the
franchisee
level
means
this
sort
of
thing
likely
won’t
happen
again
at
that
particular
branch,
but
it’s
clear
the
company
needs
to
do
far
more
than
react
if
it
ever
hopes
to
distance
itself
from
the
bad
press
the
company
and
its
employees
seem
to
be
intent
on
generating
on
a
regular
basis.
More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:
Sixth
Circuit
Tosses
Evidence
After
Cop
Can’t
Find
One
Credible
Reason
For
Extending
A
Traffic
Stop
Sports
Psychologist
Continues
Bullshit
Copyright
Suits
Over
Retweets
By
School
Officials
Net
Neutrality
Is
Dead
As
A
Doornail
Under
Trump
2.0