Budget Rent A Car Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $606K – $1.6M
- Disclosed sales
- not disclosed
- SBA charge-off
- Under 10 loans (5)
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Budget Rent A Car is a value-focused car-rental franchise serving leisure and business travelers. Franchisees operate rental locations managing the fleet, counter, reservations, and fuel and upsell revenue in a protected territory.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Budget Rent A Car franchise requires a total initial investment of $606K – $1.6M, including a $25K franchise fee and an ongoing 7.5% royalty[2]. This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. FranchiseVerdict grade: B (Above average), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: 2024 filing · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: high - figures are from a filing two or more years old
Evidence: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✗ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored3 of 5 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing; the rest are marked “Not cited” beside the figure.
Overview
- Investment
- $606K – $1.6M
- 49th pct Automotive
- Avg gross sales
- N/A
- Royalty
- 7.5%
- 37th pct Automotive
- Units
- 1,374
- 52nd pct Automotive
- SBA charge-off
- N/A
Quick verdict · Automotive · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Automotive median · No shading = within ±10% · Red = unfavorable by >10% · Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a)
Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Not financial advice. Methodology
Bottom line
- COSTTotal investment $606K – $1.6M including a $25K franchise fee, 7.5% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSThis franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that.
- RISKVerdict B (Above average), verdict score 60/100 (higher is better).
- GROWTHNegative: net -13 franchised outlets in the latest year (7 opened, 20 closed) (Item 20).
- LEGAL15 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of these, 7 name the franchisor itself, 8 its parent, affiliates or predecessor. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- Budget Rent A Car System, Inc.
- Parent company
- Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC
- FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2024 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- Avis Budget Group, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2024 FDD
- Predecessor
- Budget Rent A Car Corporation
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- President and Chief Executive Officer, Americas
- Joseph A. Ferraro
- Incorporated in
- DE
- HQ
- 379 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
- Auditor
- Deloitte & Touche LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $12.0B
- vs $12.0B prior year
Affiliated brands
- of the Predecessor
- that offers and supports franchises for
- Wizard
Other brands the franchisor or its parent operates (Item 1).
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 9
2 other brands on this site name Avis Budget Group, Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2024 FDD). Spelling variants of the same group may be listed apart; a brand is never grouped with an owner its filing does not name.
Overview
About
- CEO
- Joseph A. Ferraro
- Headquarters
- NJ
- Founded
- 2002
- FDD year
- 2024
- States available
- 31
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 195% above the typical automotive franchise.
Source: FDD 2024 · Items 5–7
Full Item 7 breakdown12 line items
Initial investment breakdown
| Line item | Low | High | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial License Purchase Feenot refundable | $30K | $30K | |
| Construction, remodeling, decorating, and leasehold improvements | $15K | $50K | |
| Furniture, fixtures, other fixed assets, and equipment | $15K | $28K | |
| Signage | $10K | $25K | |
| 3 months' rent and security deposits | $9K | $18K | |
| Vehicle Insurance Premiums | $15K | $38K | |
| Grand opening advertising and promotional costs | $2K | $5K | |
| Office supplies | $500 | $2K | |
| Miscellaneous opening costs | $1K | $3K | |
| Automobiles | $450K | $1.3M | |
| Travel and living expenses during training | $3K | $8K | |
| Additional funds - three months | $55K | $72K | |
| Total initial investment | $606K | $1.6M |
Line items extracted from FDD Item 7. Ranges reflect the franchisor's stated low and high per line. Total is the sum of line-item lows / highs — actual costs may fall outside this range depending on market and build-out scope.
Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate
The Vitals
- Total investment
- $606K – $1.6M
- Middle of category vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $55K – $72K
- Middle of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $25K – $25K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Royalty
- 7.5%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 0.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 49.5%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 7.5% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 0.0% |
| Technology fee | $42 |
| Transfer fee | $3K |
| Renewal fee | $3K |
| Total fee load | 49.5% of rev |
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
Budget Rent A Car makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD - a voluntary item under the FTC Franchise Rule - so no unit revenue figures are disclosed. The return models need a revenue figure to start from, and the operating costs that turn gross sales into a profit are in no FDD. Enter your own and the calculator runs on your assumptions — nothing here is modelled until you do.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one Budget Rent A Car unit return on the cash you put in?
Illustrative category typicals — not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Unlevered ROIC · per unit
Your modelled return on total invested capital, before any debt financing.
—
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for annual revenue, COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2024 FDD
Financial Performance
No financial performance representation
This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that.
Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 49.5% — above the Automotive median of 8.0%.
Disclosure
This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Operator retention
System contracting at -7.8% CAGR over 3 years. Investigate whether closures are franchisor-driven consolidation or franchisee exits.
Source: FDD Item 19 financial performance representations and publicly filed FDD data. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Verify all figures with the franchisor and current franchisees before making any investment decision.
vs Automotive medians
How Budget Rent A Car Compares
Category median of published Automotive brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Is the system healthy?
Source: FDD 2024 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 1,374
- Opened
- 7
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 20
- Turnover rate
- 1.5%
- Company-owned
- 1,197
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 13%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- -7.8%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- -7.8%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Reacquired
- 5
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 0
- 0.00 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 0
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
- Continuity rate
- 89.8%
- Units that stayed open
- Ceased ops
- 8.5%
- Units that stopped operating
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 30 states with active franchisees
The Territory Map
Derived from franchisee contact records. Shows states with at least one current operator. Not where the franchisor is registered to sell new units (that data is re-extracting in a future refresh).
States derived from franchisee contact records (FDD Item 20). Shows states with at least one current operator on file. Full state registration data (Item 12) will appear on a future FDD refresh.
Available to sell in · Item 12
- Hawaii
- Michigan
States where the franchisor is registered to sell new franchises (FDD registration filings).
Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list
154 current owners across 30 states.
- NJ 16
- GA 15
- UT 13
- WI 11
- KS 10
- NV 9
- AL 8
- PA 8
- TX 7
- CA 6
- MO 6
- AK 5
- +18 more states
Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20. Names and phone numbers are for your own due diligence and are not shown here.
SBA loan performance
Government records
SBA Loan Data
Aggregated from SBA loan disclosures. This brand has only 5 7(a) loans on file; statistical reliability is limited below 10 loans.
- Total loans
- 5
- Loan volume
- $1.7M
- Median loan
- $400K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- Under 10 loans (5)
- Insufficient SBA coverage: 5 loans, rate hidden below 10
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- Under 10 loans (5)
- 5-yr charge-off
- Under 10 loans (5)
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 5
- Defaults
- N/A
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
What could kill this investment?
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
Budget Rent A Car presents high risk due to a contracting franchise system, multiple active litigation exposures including consumer fraud class actions, FTC regulatory violations, and complete absence of financial disclosure—making ROI validation impossible before substantial capital commitment.
Why this reads harsher than the B grade: the grade weighs financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency across the whole filing, while this summary lists individual flags without that weighting. The flags are worth checking with current owners; neither is investment advice.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Two pending civil cases: (1) Bacon et al. v. Avis Budget Group/Payless Car Rental (D.N.J., 2016) - class action re fraudulent counter sales; (2) Valli v. Avis Budget Group (D.N.J., 2014) - class action re speeding violation fees/consumer fraud. One FTC Consent Order (Docket No. C-4212) effective until January 2, 2028 regarding fuel charge disclosures. Multiple concluded cases involving settlements.
Largest disclosed settlement: $33,956,613
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · Deloitte & Touche LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Item 21 financial statements are the audited consolidated financials of parent/guarantor Avis Budget Group, Inc. (not the franchisor BRACS standalone), as of Dec 31, 2023 and 2022. The numeric balance sheet and statement of operations tables did not extract as text in this file; only the auditor's report narrative is present. Deloitte & Touche LLP has served as auditor since 1997.
ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results — the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
- Franchisor sells you products: Yes
- Kickbacks from required suppliers: No
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: No
Score breakdown · what drove the 60 / 100 verdict
- 01MINORDeclining unit count (-6.8% YoY) signals system contraction and reduced franchisee support infrastructure
- 02HIGHMultiple pending class actions for consumer fraud and deceptive practices indicate systemic operational or marketing issues
- 03MINORTwo FTC consent orders on fuel charges and damage disclosure suggest repeated regulatory violations and compliance failures
- 04MINORNo Item 19 financial performance disclosure prevents validation of claimed profitability and revenue potential
- 05MINORHigh initial investment ($605K-$1.57M) combined with 7.5% royalty creates significant fixed cost burden with unproven returns
- 06HIGHLabor law litigation and contractor misclassification claims suggest HR/compliance risk for franchisees
- 07MINORShrinking system with declining units reduces brand value, reservation volume, and corporate support resources
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail15 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Concluded (7)
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
settledThird-party plaintiff · filed 2013-12-31 · Superior Court for the State of California for the District of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino · 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 13 of the 2024 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.”
Herbert Johnson v. Budget Rent A Car System, Inc.
settledThird-party plaintiff · filed 2013-08-06 · Cook County Circuit Court, State of Illinois · 13-CH-18361
“Herbert Johnson v. Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. (Cook County Circuit Court, State of Illinois, Case No. 13-CH-18361). On August 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and Illinois Vehicle Code for charges and collection of State Sales tax imposed on airport customer facility charges.”Page 14 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Venerus v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC et al.
settledThird-party plaintiff · filed 2013-06-12 · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 13-CV-921
“Venerus v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC et al. (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 14 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“ABCR and Budget agreed to make a total of up to $33,956,613.00 available for settlement of all claims in this matter.”
Daniel Klein and Stephanie Klein, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. and Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC
settledThird-party plaintiff · filed 2012-11-27 · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2:12-CV-07300-JLL-MAH
“On November 27, 2012, Plaintiffs Daniel Klein and Stephanie Klein, participants in Budget’s travel rewards program (“Travel Rewards Program”), filed a putative class action against ABCR and Budget, alleging a failure to adequately disclose to participants in the Travel Rewards Program that defendants impose a surcharge for frequent flyer miles earned through online rental transactions.”Page 15 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Luigi Ambrose, et al. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc.
settledThird-party plaintiff · filed 2011-10-14 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:11-CV-09992-CAS-AGR
“Luis Ambrose, and 17 other current and former agency operators of Avis or Budget, filed a complaint against Avis, Budget, and ABG. The case was filed in state court and subsequently removed to federal court. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Avis/Budget agency operators have been misclassified as independent contractors under California Law.”Page 16 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Gregory Chase v. Budget
dismissedThird-party plaintiff · filed 2010 · Second Judicial District Court for the State of New Mexico · CV-MO-08530
“Under that program, Budget is a preferred rental car partner. Plaintiff alleges that a $0.75 per day charge for renters under Southwest’s program is a breach of contract as it is not disclosed and its charge and collection constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice. A stipulation of dismissal was filed on March 2, 2015.”Page 14 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
In the Matter of Budget Rent A Car System, Inc.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Federal Trade Commission · Docket No. C-4212
“In the Matter of 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 13 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (2)
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.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Avis Budget Group, Inc. (ABG, ultimate parent) and 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
“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 12 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Dawn Valli vs. Avis Budget Group, Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Avis Budget Group, Inc. (ABG, ultimate parent) · filed 2014-09-30 · United States District Court, District of New Jersey · 2:2014-cv-06072-CCC-JBC
“Dawn Valli vs. Avis Budget Group, Inc. (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 12 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Concluded (6)
Kirit Bakshi v. ABCR Avis Budget Group, et als.
settledThird-party plaintiff · Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC (ABCR, direct parent) / Avis Budget Group, Inc. (ABG) · filed 2020-02-18 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · 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. Plaintiff alleges ABG/Costco fraudulently, uniformly, routinely and systematically imposed unauthorized and/or specifically declined charges”Page 13 of the 2024 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
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Avis Budget Group, Inc. (ABG) and two of its Canadian subsidiaries · filed 2015 · Competition Tribunal (Canada)
“Canadian Competition Authority. 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 15 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The case was settled with ABG paying $3.25 million on June 2, 2016.”
J&J Marshall, Inc., a California corporation v. Robert Koneti, individually, BVR Solutions, Inc., a California Corporation and Avis Budget Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1-40, inclusive
settledThird-party plaintiff · Avis Budget Group, Inc. (ABG) · filed 2013 · Superior Court of the State of California for Ventura County · 56-2013004455653 CU-NP-VTA
“On or about May 1, 2012, Plaintiff purchased the operating rights to the Budget Oxnard location from Defendants. On December 6 2013, plaintiff filed suit against Robert Koneti and BVR Solutions, and ABG, alleging that defendants made numerous intentionally false and damaging statements regarding the continued operation of the Budget Oxnard location.”Page 16 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The case settled for $400,000.00 and was dismissed on December 22, 2015.”
Faith Enterprises Group, Inc. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC and Avis Rent A Car System, f/k/a Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc.
settledThird-party plaintiff · Avis Budget Group, Inc. (ABG), with Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC and affiliate Avis Rent A Car System · filed 2011-09-19 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · 1:11-CV-3166
“On September 19, 2011, plaintiff, an Avis agency operator, filed a complaint on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that: a) Avis listed agency operators locations as being “sold out” to divert business to nearby airports, b) Avis breached a duty to supply agency operators locations with sufficient vehicles for rental”Page 15 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Jose Mendez v. Avis Budget Group and Highway Toll Administration
settledThird-party plaintiff · Avis Budget Group, Inc. (ABG, ultimate parent) · filed 2011-11-07 · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 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 for alleged failure to disclose E-Toll activations, fees, and charging non-discounted tolls.”Page 15 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Avis Budget Group paid $6,700,000 in legal fees and $2,700,000 in settlement costs.”
In the Matter of Budget Rent-A-Car Systems Inc.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Budget Rent-A-Car Systems Inc. (BRAC, “Systems”), described as an affiliate of the Predecessor (Budget Rent A Car Corporation) · Federal Trade Commission · Docket No. C3674
“On June 21, 1996, the FTC made final the Consent Order with BRAC, an affiliate of the Predecessor (“Systems”), which settled charges that Systems engaged in deceptive practices when failing to disclose potential charges to customers of “loss of turnback” values exceeding the cost of repairs, when those customers returned their cars with significant damage.”Page 14 of the 2024 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The Consent Order required Systems to pay the FTC $75,000 for consumer redress.”
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.
What are you signing up for?
Ongoing fees run about 49.5% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.
Source: FDD 2024 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 10 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 5 years |
| Territory type | Protected territory |
| Protected territory | Yes |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Territory population | 25,000 |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Granted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Optional |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 1 year |
| Non-compete (miles)ℹ | 5 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| RoFR response window | 60 days |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 180 days |
| Curable defaultsℹ | 2 |
| Mandatory arbitration | No |
| Jury trial waiver | No |
| Governing law | NJ |
| Litigation count | 15 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Two pending civil cases: (1) Bacon et al. v. Avis Budget Group/Payless Car Rental (D.N.J., 2016) - class action re fraudulent counter sales; (2) Valli v. Avis Budget Group (D.N.J., 2014) - class action re speeding violation fees/consumer fraud. One FTC Consent Order (Docket No. C-4212) effective until January 2, 2028 regarding fuel charge disclosures. Multiple concluded cases involving settlements.
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 73 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 0 hrs
- Training location
- Web-based (Workday Learning); on-the-job at franchisee location if required
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 3 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- franchisee with Budget approval
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- Wizard
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: Wizard
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
154 owners to call
Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20
Frequently asked questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to open a Budget Rent A Car franchise?
The total investment to open a Budget Rent A Car franchise ranges from $606K – $1.6M, with an initial franchise fee of $25K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do Budget Rent A Car franchise owners earn?
Budget Rent A Car makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD - a voluntary item under the FTC Franchise Rule - so no unit revenue figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Who owns Budget Rent A Car?
Budget Rent A Car is franchised by Budget Rent A Car System, Inc.. Its parent company is Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Avis Budget Group, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2024 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Budget Rent A Car FDD?
The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. FranchiseVerdict extracts these figures directly from the Budget Rent A Car FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Budget Rent A Car's franchise failure rate?
SBA 7(a) loan charge-off data is not available for Budget Rent A Car (fewer than 10 loans on file). Charge-off rates are one way to gauge franchise risk, but not all franchise loans go through the SBA program. We recommend reviewing turnover and closure data in the FDD and speaking with current franchisees.
How many Budget Rent A Car franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Budget Rent A Car has 1,374 total units in the United States, including 177 franchised units and 1,197 company-owned units. 7 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is Budget Rent A Car a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Budget Rent A Car as a B-grade franchise with a verdict score of 60 out of 100 (higher is better). The grade is a deterministic score built from six weighted dimensions — financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency — then calibrated against SBA loan charge-off rates and FDD age. Transparency is one of the six, so a filing that discloses less scores lower on that dimension than one that discloses more. Our rating is based solely on publicly available FDD and government data; we recommend speaking with current franchisees before making any investment decision. This is not investment advice.
Data sourced from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) FOIA records. Not financial advice.
For franchisors
Are you the franchisor?
If you represent Budget Rent A Car, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Automotive franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Automotive category
Data extracted from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) loan disclosures (FOIA). This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.