Lawmakers noted that unlike some competitors, Hertz appears to rely entirely on artificial intelligence without human verification when billing customers for damage.
Subcommittee Chair Nancy Mace emphasized that other rental car providers reportedly use AI technology but still include human review before charging customers. Hertz, however, seems to operate differently, issuing assessments solely based on AI findings.
This distinction has raised concerns, particularly after a wave of media reports highlighted instances where renters were hit with significant charges once they had already left Hertz locations.
Mace’s letter also pointed out that customers often receive delayed notifications of supposed damage, making it difficult to dispute charges before fees increase. The Subcommittee warned that these practices could influence how federal agencies handle car rentals for official purposes.
Hertz began deploying AI-powered scanners earlier this year at major U.S. airports, including Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Newark, and Phoenix, with plans to expand the system to 100 locations by the end of 2025. The technology was developed in partnership with Israeli company UVeye, which specializes in AI-driven camera systems and machine learning. Hertz has promoted the scanners as a way to improve the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle inspections, while also boosting availability and transparency for customers.
According to Hertz, the UVeye platform can scan multiple parts of a vehicle—including body panels, tires, glass, and the undercarriage—automatically identifying possible damage or maintenance needs. The company has claimed that the system enhances manual checks rather than replacing them entirely.
Despite these assurances, customer experiences tell a different story. On the r/HertzRentals subreddit, multiple users have shared frustrations over disputed damage claims. One renter described how an AI scanner flagged damage on a vehicle that was wet from rain, triggering an automated message from Hertz about detected issues.
Upon inspection, the renter found no visible damage and even recorded a video to prove the car’s condition, but Hertz employees insisted they had no control over the system and directed the customer to corporate support.
Such incidents have fueled doubts about the fairness and reliability of fully automated damage assessments.
The Subcommittee has asked Hertz to provide a briefing by August 27 to clarify how the company expects the technology to benefit customers and how it could affect Hertz’s contracts with the federal government.
With Congress now involved, the controversy marks a turning point in the debate over AI’s role in customer-facing services, especially when automation leaves little room for human oversight.
