Hertz Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Website Terms & Conditions

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A New Jersey resident has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Hertz car rental company alleging that the company’s terms and conditions on its website regarding enrollment participation in the Gold Plus Rewards Program are in violation of the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA).

Plaintiff David Hecht alleges that the terms and conditions listed on the Hertz website are in violation of the TCCWNA by failing to state how the provisions mentioned affect residents of New Jersey.

Specifically, the lawsuit references that the relevant part of the TCCWNA states “No consumer contract, notice or sign shall state that any of its provisions is or may be void, unenforceable or inapplicable without specifying which provisions are or are not void, unenforceable or inapplicable within the State of New Jersey.”

In the Hertz Gold Plus Rewards Program, participants may reserve their rental cars online and proceed directly to the vehicle upon arrival at the Hertz rental facility, bypassing the rental counter entirely. Hertz Gold members may also earn points toward free rental days or the points may be converted to awards of loyalty programs maintained by other companies.

Hecht states that Hertz violates the TCCWNA both in its Terms and Conditions for Use of Hertz’ Website and in the Terms and Condition of Hertz’ Gold Plus Rewards Program, bringing forth two counts against the company.

The plaintiff seeks to represent two Classes in the proposed class action suit. The first Class is a Hertz Gold Plus Rewards Program Class that includes New Jersey residents who were members of the Hertz Gold program at the time of the filing and the six years prior during the time when the website Terms and Conditions stated ”in words or substance, that Gold Plus Rewards offers are void where prohibited, without specifying whether these provisions are or are not void, unenforceable or inapplicable within the State of New Jersey.”

Hecht proposes a similar Class of Hertz Renters who rented a vehicle for personal, household or family purposes after using the Hertz website to reserve the rental vehicle within six years of the date of the filing. The proposed Class would cover a time when Hertz’ Terms of Use stated “that except as otherwise required by law, price, rate and availability of products or services are subject to change without notice and that the Hertz’ General Terms of Use are void where prohibited, without specifying whether these provisions are void, unenforceable, or inapplicable within the State of New Jersey.”

Hecht, on behalf of himself and the Classes he seeks to represent, is asking for TCCWNA’s mandatory $100 statutory penalty plus attorneys’ fees and costs for each violation of TCCWNA. The lawsuit states that the proposed Class is at least 100 members and the amount in controversy is in excess of $5 million.

The plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey W. Hermann of Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP, Richard S. Cornfeld of the Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld; and Anthony S. Bruning, Anthony S. Bruning, Jr. and Ryan L. Bruning of The Bruning Law Firm, LLC.

The Hertz Gold Class Action Lawsuit is David Hecht v. The Hertz Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-01485 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.