What was the FTC Docket number for the matter involving Budget Rent-A-Car Systems Inc.?
Budget Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
trade practice. A stipulation of dismissal was filed on March 2, 2015.
In the Matter of Budget Rent-A-Car Systems Inc. (Federal Trade Commission Docket No. C3674). On June 21, 1996, the FTC made final the Consent Order with BRAC, an affiliate of the Predecessor ("Systems"), which settled charges that Systems engaged in deceptive practices when failing to disclose potential charges to customers of "loss of turnback" values exceeding the cost of repairs, when those customers returned their cars with significant damage. The FTC alleged that, in those situations, Systems sought to collect "loss of turnback" values, which value was the amount Systems lost because damaged vehicles could not be resold to the manufacturer at a price higher than retail.
The Consent Order required Systems to pay the FTC $75,000 for consumer redress. In addition, if Systems intended to charge consumers for the "loss of turnback" values again, the order required Systems to clearly disclose in rental contracts and in travel agents' and other computerized reservation systems consumers' liability for damage or loss in excess of the actual cost of repairs to damaged vehicles or the fair market value of the vehicle, and to post this information at each of its rental locations where it collects such amounts. The Consent Order also required Systems to distribute a copy of the Order to all managers who have responsibilities relating to the collision or theft damages from renters, and to notify the FTC of any proposed change in Systems' corporate structure. Budget is obligated to comply with the Consent Order. The Consent Order terminated on June 17, 2016, and is included in Exhibit C of this disclosure document.
Venerus v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC et al. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 13-CV-921). On June 12, 2013, plaintiff Heather Venerus, a renter of a Budget vehicle, filed a purported class action lawsuit against ABCR and Budget. Budget's international tour company partners include supplemental liability insurance ("SLI") or additional liability insurance ("ALI") coverage in tour package rates. Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to procure SLI or ALI insurance policies for and/or sold unauthorized SLI or ALI products to purchasers of these tour packages. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of various Florida statutes, including the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and seeks money damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief. The court decertified the class and an individual judgment was entered for $176 for Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has appealed. Oral argument on the cross appeals was scheduled for December 6, 2017. On January 25,
2018, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted in part and denied in part the appeals, and remanded to the District Court on the issue of proper standards used to define standing when decertifying a class. Plaintiff's claims that Budget unlawfully transacted insurance sales were denied.
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 12–16)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Budget's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, there were two separate FTC investigations into Budget Rent-A-Car Systems Inc. The first matter, detailed in the FDD, was Federal Trade Commission Docket No. C3674. This case, finalized on June 21, 1996, involved allegations of deceptive practices related to undisclosed charges for "loss of turnback" values when customers returned cars with significant damage. Budget was required to pay $75,000 for consumer redress and ensure clear disclosure of potential damage charges in rental contracts. The consent order for this matter terminated on June 17, 2016.
The second matter was Federal Trade Commission Docket No. C-4212. This investigation concerned Budget's practices regarding fuel charges imposed on renters who drove less than 75 miles. As part of the consent agreement, Budget was required to modify its disclosure language to clearly state any fuel-related charges, fees, or costs in marketing materials and at the time of rental. This consent order was signed on January 2, 2008, and Budget is obligated to comply with it until January 2, 2028.
Prospective franchisees should carefully review Exhibit C of the FDD, as it contains the full consent orders for both FTC matters. Understanding the details of these past legal issues can help franchisees ensure they comply with current regulations and avoid similar problems in their own operations. It is important to note that these consent orders reflect Budget's past conduct and the measures they were required to take to resolve the FTC's concerns.