Hertz Class Action Lawsuit Challenges Excessive Unpaid Toll Fees

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.

The Hertz Corp. is facing another class action lawsuit challenging its practice of charging rental car customers excessive fees for tolls that are unpaid because the transponders provided by Hertz don’t work on all toll roads.

Plaintiffs Moses Oliva and David Claassen claim they belong to Hertz’s Gold Plus Rewards Program, and gave an electronic signature when they enrolled in the program. The plaintiffs provided their electronic signature prior to receiving Hertz’s Rental Record, which was therefore not part of the plaintiffs’ contract with Hertz, they allege in the Hertz class action lawsuit.

The Hertz Rental Record, which was allegedly provided to the plaintiffs only after their car rentals had commenced, was the only document that notified them that toll roads in Southern California did not accept PlatePass or cash and that they would therefore be charged a $30 administrative fee each time they passed through the toll without the proper transponders.

PlatePass is an electronic toll collection service that allows motorists to pay tolls automatically without stopping at a toll booth, as long as the toll road accepts PlatePass payments.

“No one at Hertz asked Plaintiffs to sign—and they did not sign—the Rental Records that they received after their rentals had commenced,” the Hertz class action lawsuit says. “Hertz’s Rental Record instead states at the bottom of the last page: ‘GOLD-SIGNATURE ON FILE.’”

Oliva and Claassen claim these terms should not apply because they began their rentals without ever seeing the Rental Records. The Hertz class action lawsuit accuses the rental car company of engaging in a pattern of deceptive and misleading conduct.

According to the Hertz class action lawsuit, the $30 administrative fee charged by Hertz for the unpaid tolls is far more than the “pennies per transaction” Hertz incurs. Oliva and Claassen allege Hertz illegally charges customers the excessive administrative fee to generate a profit, not to cover the expenses related to the cost of collecting the unpaid toll fine.

The Hertz class action lawsuit seeks to represent a Class of Hertz Gold Plus members who rented Hertz vehicles in California prior to Oct. 24, 2016 and who were charged at least one $30 administrative fee related to a toll violation during the car rental period.

The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, and unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business practices that violate California law. They are seeking compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and other relief deemed proper by the court.

This is not the first Hertz class action lawsuit to challenge the rental car company’s practices of charging Gold Plus members for unpaid toll fees. A similar unpaid toll fee class action lawsuit was filed against Hertz in October.

Oliva and Claassen are represented by Robert J. Gralewski Jr. and Fatima G. Brizuela of Kirby McInerney LLP.

The Hertz Unpaid Toll Fees Class Action Lawsuit is Moses Oliva, et al. v. The Hertz Corp., Case No. 3:17-cv-01083, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.