ICYMI: Blumenthal Demands Answers from Hertz About AI Rental Car Inspections

[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) demanded answers yesterday from Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. about its partnership with UVeye Inc. to implement artificial intelligence (AI) scanners in its rental car return inspection process. Blumenthal’s letter follows reports of consumers’ negative experiences with the AI scanners and the subsequent damage appeal process, which consumers have described as extremely opaque and unreasonably punitive. In a letter to Hertz CEO Wayne “Gil” West, Blumenthal is seeking information about Hertz’s use of AI, the excessive fees incurred by consumers, and whether Hertz plans to eventually phase out employee inspections with its scanners.

“Consumers whose rental cars passed through Hertz’s AI vehicle scanners have all described strikingly similar stories – seemingly insignificant or even nonexistent damage claims that incur exorbitant processing and administrative fees, with only vague descriptions from Hertz as to what those fees are actually for,” Blumenthal wrote.

Blumenthal continued, “Moreover, to appeal a claim, consumers are forced to deal with a chatbot system that can only flag a case for later review by a live, human agent. For instance, one individual who was charged $440 for a minor scuff – again with disproportionate fees making up much of that total – described being unable to receive adequate assistance through the chatbot program.”

Blumenthal also raised concerns about whether Hertz’s UVeye partnership will be used to eventually phase out employees, “This partnership, coupled with Hertz’s already-implemented scanners contradicting and overriding visual assessments by on-the-ground Hertz employees, raises serious questions about Hertz’s intention in implementing AI vehicle scanners. In addition, Hertz has not clarified if and how the company will ensure its damage assessment process remains human-led and does not outright replace the judgement or involvement of its employees.”

The full text of Blumenthal’s letter to Hertz is available here and below.

August 26, 2025

Mr. Wayne “Gil” West

Chief Executive Officer

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.

8501 Williams Road

Estero, Florida 33928

Dear Mr. West,

I am extremely concerned by recent reports regarding Hertz’s use of artificial intelligence (AI) to inspect returned rental cars for damage. Since fall 2024, Hertz has installed AI vehicle scanners at least six U.S. airports and reportedly plans to expand the system’s use to at least 100 locations by the end of the year.^[1] However, consumers repeatedly describe the scanners and the process to appeal damage claims as a decidedly negative experience that is extremely opaque and unreasonably punitive. Hertz owes consumers an explanation for its charges and nothing short of full transparency about how it is using AI.

Consumers whose rental cars passed through Hertz’s AI vehicle scanners have all described strikingly similar stories – seemingly insignificant or even nonexistent damage claims that incur exorbitant processing and administrative fees, with only vague descriptions from Hertz as to what those fees are actually for. Hertz also frequently offers to reduce consumers’ payments if they pay within one or two days – presumably to encourage a quick settlement. For example, one individual who returned a vehicle with no damage detected by the renter or a Hertz employee in a visual inspection was charged $195 for a dent detected by the AI scanner. Adding insult to injury, the cost to repair the damage was only $80, with the difference of $115 in fees to “detect and estimate the damage” and for “processing” the claim – and Hertz said it would reduce the charge to $130 if the renter paid within one day. [2] Moreover, to appeal a claim, consumers are forced to deal with a chatbot system that can only flag a case for later review by a live, human agent. For instance, one individual who was charged $440 for a minor scuff – again with disproportionate fees making up much of that total – described being unable to receive adequate assistance through the chatbot program. Accordingly, the renter followed a “Contact Us” link to send Hertz an email and was told he would receive a response within ten business days – conveniently just after the seven-day expiration date of the discount Hertz had offered him.^[3]

In April, Hertz announced a partnership with UVeye Inc. to implement “advanced AI inspection” for vehicles.^[4] UVeye reportedly advertises its technology as able to “detect 5X more damage than manual checks” and generate “6X higher total value of damage captured.”^[5] This partnership, coupled with Hertz’s already-implemented scanners contradicting and overriding visual assessments by on-the-ground Hertz employees, raises serious questions about Hertz’s intention in implementing AI vehicle scanners. In addition, Hertz has not clarified if and how the company will ensure its damage assessment process remains human-led and does not outright replace the judgement or involvement of its employees.

To better understand Hertz’s use of AI, I respectfully request a written response to the following questions by no later than September 16, 2025:

1. Please describe Hertz’s future plans for AI vehicle scanners. Please provide a list of all locations Hertz currently has an operational AI vehicle scanner, and if Hertz plans to expand, including to 100 locations by the end of 2025 as reported, please provide a list of those locations and the expected start date of operation of AI vehicle scanners at each location.
2. What is the current accuracy rate of detecting damage in inspections conducted by AI vehicle scanners? By Hertz employees? Please describe how these rates are determined.
3. Please describe, in detail, the fees Hertz charges to consumers for damage detected by an AI vehicle scanner, including how Hertz calculates such fees.
4. Consumers have reported fees charged often exceed the indicated cost of damage to the vehicle. Please describe how such fees are reasonable and fair to charge consumers.
5. Please describe your current internal review process, if any, of damage claims.
6. Please provide the following information regarding claims initiated as a result of damage detected by an AI vehicle scanner: (i) the total number of claims initiated; (ii) the total number of claims appealed by consumers; (iii) the number of claims disaggregated by claim status; (iv) the number of claims settled within Hertz’s offered discount period; and (v) the number of claims where no damage was detected by an employee’s visual inspection.
7. Does Hertz plan to phase out the use of visual inspections by employees? If so, by when? If not, please describe how Hertz will evaluate an employee’s visual inspection when charging consumers for damage, especially when an AI vehicle scanner inspection detects damage contradictory to an employee’s inspection.
8. When in the appeals process is a consumer able to interact with a human regarding their appeal? If not from the beginning, what obstacles prevent Hertz from providing consumers the opportunity to interact with a human reviewer from the start of the appeals process?
9. What limitations, if any, did UVeye express to Hertz regarding the use of its technology?
10. In Hertz’s decision to partner with UVeye, what was the minimum accuracy benchmark Hertz was willing to accept?

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

-30-