FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Avis litigation history

What Avis disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document. Item 3 lists the material legal actions a franchisor must report; Item 4 covers bankruptcy. This is the franchisor's own disclosure, not a court record, and not legal advice.

Items 3 (litigation) & 4 (bankruptcy) at a glance

What the filing discloses

Cases disclosed: 21; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $1.8M; As stated in Item 3

Bankruptcy (Item 4): None; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2025; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

5 pending actions including class actions re fraudulent counter sales (Bacon v ABG), toll fee claims (Valli v ABG), shareholder derivative suit (De Angelis), and two Travelers United consumer fraud complaints. Several concluded matters resolved by settlement. FTC consent orders for Budget affiliate (fuel charges, damage disclosures).

Item 3 (litigation) · 21 matters disclosed · 5 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (1)

Travelers United, Inc. v. Avis Rent A Car System, LLC et al
pending
filed 2024-09-11 · District of Columbia Superior Court · 2024-CAB-005792
“… (District of Columbia Superior Court, Case No. 2024-CAB-005792). On September 11, 2024, plaintiff Travelers United Inc. filed a complaint alleging that Avis has been systematically cheating consumers by refusing to rent vehicles for advertised prices.”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (3)

Lecrimar Enterprises (Avis Cyprus) Termination.
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2016-03-24
“… This lawsuit filed on March 24, 2016 involves a dispute with a terminated Avis Cypriot licensee claiming EUR 2 million in damages. The matter has further to the order of the Court been referred to Mediation on March 2, 2017. The matter was settled at mediation for £685,000 on June 28, 2017.”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Faiz Ahmed, d/b/a Premium Autos, LLC and Ahsan Syed, d/b/a ARS, Inc. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Avis Budget Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-100, Inclusive
settled
filed 2013-12-31 · Superior Court for the State of California for the District of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino · CIVRS 1308871
“Case No. CIVRS 1308871). On December 31, 2013, plaintiffs, agency operators of Avis and Budget, filed a complaint against Avis, Budget, and ABG, seeking relief under California’s wage and hour laws to remedy the alleged misclassification of agency operators as independent contractors rather than classifying each of the Plaintiffs as employees.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties entered into settlement agreements in December 2018 where a total settlement of $1,758,000 (Ahmed: $500,000, Syed: $500,000, Huseinbhai: $250,000, and Sansone: $250,000) was paid to the trust account of LA Superlawyers, Inc. on behalf of each of the plaintiffs.”
Lakeisha McClain, Leonard McClain and L&M Agency v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.
dismissed
filed 2012-08-15 · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2:12-cv-05151
“… (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:12-cv-05151). Plaintiff L&M Agency (“L&M”), a former independent operator of an Avis location, and its individual owners filed an action against Avis on August 15, 2012”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On March 23, 2015, the court entered an order that granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Avis and dismissed the case. Plaintiff is appealing the dismissal of the case.”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (4)

Paula De Angelis v. Bernardo Hees, Jagdeep Pahway, Anu Hariharan, Lyn Krominga, Glen Lurie, Karthik Sarma, Joseph A. Ferraro, Izilda P. Martins, and SRS Investment Management LLC, Defendants and Avis Budget Group, Inc. Nominal Defendant
pending
Avis Budget Group, Inc. (nominal defendant); directors and SRS Investment Management LLC are the defendants · filed 2024-04-26 · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2:24-cv-05687
“Case No. 2:24-cv-05687). On April 26, 2024, plaintiff Paula De Angelis, filed a shareholder derivative action alleging violations of federal securities laws, breaches of the directors’ and controlling shareholders fiduciary duties, and for unjust enrichment.”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Travelers United, Inc. v. Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. et al
pending
Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., et al. · filed 2024-09-11 · District of Columbia Superior Court · 2024-CAB-005736
“… (District of Columbia Superior Court, Case No. 2024-CAB-005736). On September 11, 2024, plaintiff Travelers United Inc. filed a complaint alleging that Budget has been systematically cheating consumers by refusing to rent vehicles for advertised prices.”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Abigail Bacon, Arcadia Lee, Jeannine Devries, Lisa Geary, Richard Alexander, Yvonne Wheeler and George Davidson and on behalf of themselves and the putative class v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. and Payless Car Rental, Inc.
pending
Avis Budget Group, Inc. (with affiliate Payless Car Rental, Inc.) · filed 2016-09-26 · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2:16-cv-05939-KM-JBC
“Case No. 2:16-cv- 05939-KM-JBC). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on September 26, 2016 alleging that Payless has a pattern and practice of fraudulent counter sales including: 1) “add-on” sales—practice of adding coverages that were declined by customers; and 2) Fuel charges-customers were charged for fuel reserving services even though they returned the vehicle full.”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “As of December 2024, the parties are discussing settlement while moving forward with motion to dismiss briefing.”
Dawn Valli vs. Avis Budget Group, Inc.
pending
Avis Budget Group, Inc. · filed 2014-09-30 · United States District Court, District of New Jersey · 2:2014-cv-06072-CCC-JBC
“… (United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:2014-cv-06072-CCC-JBC ) On September 30, 2014, Plaintiff Dawn Valli filed an alleged class action suit for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of good faith, and unjust enrichment arising from payment of speeding violation incurred in Washington DC and administrative fees.”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (7)

Kirit Bakshi v. ABCR Avis Budget Group, et als.
settled
ABCR Avis Budget Group, et als. · filed 2020-02-18 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · 2:20-cv-10419-DML-MJH
“… – (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 2:20-cv-10419-DML-MJH) On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, California Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200) and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties settled this case on December 2, 2022 for $20,000 and the case was closed on December 14, 2022.”
Canadian Competition Authority
settled
Government or regulatory action · Avis Budget Group, Inc. and two of its Canadian subsidiaries · filed 2015 · Competition Tribunal
“… In March 2015, the Canadian Competition Bureau filed an application with the Competition Tribunal alleging that ABG and two of its Canadian subsidiaries engaged in deceptive marketing practices with regard to certain charges that consumers are invoiced related to renting a vehicle and associated products in Canada.”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The case was settled with ABG paying $3.25 million on June 2, 2016.”
Venerus v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC et al.
settled
Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC (ABCR) and Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. · filed 2013-06-12 · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 13-CV-921
“… (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 13-CV-921). On June 12, 2013, plaintiff Heather Venerus, a renter of a Budget vehicle, filed a purported class action lawsuit against ABCR and Budget.”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The Class Action Settlement Agreement was approved and the case was dismissed with prejudice on March 30, 2023. Class Counsel was awarded $8,525,000 in fees and $400,000 in costs. ABCR and Budget agreed to make a total of up to $33,956,613.00 available for settlement of all claims in this matter.”
Jose Mendez v. Avis Budget Group and Highway Toll Administration
settled
Avis Budget Group, Inc. · filed 2011-11-07 · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2:11-CV-06537
“… (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:11-CV-06537). On November 7, 2011, Jose Mendez filed a putative nationwide class action lawsuit for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties signed a settlement agreement on June 29, 2022. Avis Budget Group paid $6,700,000 in legal fees and $2,700,000 in settlement costs.” (page 15)
In the Matter of Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. (Federal Trade Commission Docket No. C-4212)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. · Federal Trade Commission · Docket No. C-4212
“… The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) undertook an investigation of Budget’s practices alleging that Budget engaged in unfair and deceptive practices related to fuel charges imposed upon renters who drive less than 75 miles.”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On January 2, 2008, the FTC signed the Decision and Consent Order. Budget is obligated to comply with the Consent Order until January 2, 2028.”
Skylink Rent A Car Ltd (Plaintiff) / Avis Europe Holdings Limited and one other: Termination of Licensee.
settled
Brought by a franchisee · Avis Europe Holdings Limited (the Licensor) and one other
“… Plaintiff is an ex-licensee for Tanzania on whom Avis Europe Holdings Limited (the Licensor) served one year Notice of Termination on September 16, 2013.”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “This case settled on September 15, 2017 for $60,000.”
Thomas McCabe v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., et al.
settled
Avis Budget Group, Inc., et al. · Hartford Superior Court · HHD-CV-20-6127745-S
“… (Hartford Superior Court Docket No.: HHD- CV-20-6127745-S) Plaintiff filed an administrative complaint alleging fraud, bad faith, unfair trade practices and breach arising from erroneous Wizard number applied to transaction.”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The case was settled on March 11, 2021 in a settlement in the amount of $8,750 was paid to the plaintiff.”

This list shows 15 of the 21 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.

Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Active litigation involving consumer fraud, deceptive counter sales practices, and contractor misclassification suggests systemic operational issues that could expose franchisees to legal liability
Multiple concluded settlements for undisclosed surcharges, unwanted text messages, and administrative fees indicate pattern of problematic revenue collection practices that could damage franchisee reputation

The verdict grade is FranchiseVerdict's editorial assessment across SBA loan performance, unit growth, revenue and disclosure signals. It is not investment advice.

Before you weigh a lawsuit

How to read Item 3

A franchisor must disclose pending actions and any material civil action involving the franchise relationship, plus convictions or civil judgments for fraud, unfair or deceptive practices, or franchise-law violations, going back ten years. A case the franchisor brought against a franchisee counts too. Item 3 does not include every dispute: settled claims below the materiality line and matters resolved in private arbitration can be absent.

Questions worth asking current and former franchisees, using the contact list in Item 20:

Were you, or anyone you know in the system, party to a dispute with the franchisor?
Was it resolved by settlement, arbitration or a court, and on what terms?
Has the number of disputes gone up or down since you signed?

Back to the Avis verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls