Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Price Transparency Rental Cars topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill requiring upfront ‘real price’ for rental-car bookings
Summary
AB 1374 by Assemblymember Berman would require rental companies and third-party sellers to disclose the total estimated charges once a consumer has selected dates, location and vehicle type. Supporters said the change prevents last-minute price surprises; industry warned vague language could invite litigation.
Assemblymember Berman presented AB 1374, legislation to require rental-car businesses and third-party sellers to disclose an estimate of the total charges for a rental as soon as consumers select dates, location and vehicle type.
Why it matters: Supporters said the bill prevents deceptive or confusing price displays that hide mandatory fees until late in the checkout flow, while industry representatives said existing California law already requires price disclosures and warned the proposed revisions could invite litigation if worded imprecisely.
Berman said hidden fees and last‑minute add-ons frustrate consumers and cited a secret-shopper review and screenshots in the sponsor letter showing discrepancies between advertised prices and ultimate totals; in one example a five‑day rental’s total increased by more than $100 after fees were added. Robert Hurrell of the Consumer Federation of California supported the bill and summarized the sponsor’s secret‑shopper findings.
Opponents urged caution. John Moffitt of Enterprise Mobility said California’s rental-car disclosure law has been in place for over a decade, companies know how to comply, and small wording changes—such as replacing a known legal term like “good‑faith estimate” with “total charges estimate”—could create new private‑claim exposure. He and others suggested that the bill should target noncompliant third‑party platforms rather than impose broad changes that invite litigation against compliant rental firms.
During discussion the author and industry witnesses traded examples of where consumers saw a final total before payment and where companies’ flow hid fees until the last page. The author argued that the bill targets the psychology of checkout flows and seeks an apples‑to‑apples comparison for consumers, and said she had adopted author amendments after stakeholder conversations.
Action: The committee passed AB 1374 as amended. The roll call recorded during the hearing showed the motion carried (committee summary roll call recorded 13 yes, 0 no).
Ending: The committee advanced AB 1374 with amendments intended to improve transparency for consumers and to address stakeholder concerns; the author said she will continue discussions with industry to refine language and implementation details.
