Dollar Rent A Car litigation history

The franchisor

Pending (1)

• Dollar Rent A Car Incorporated and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System Incorporated v. Yunus Moolla, Imraan Moolla, The Trustees Of Safy Trust, and Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd

  pending

  Brought by the franchisor · High Court of South Africa

  “Dollar Rent A Car Incorporated and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System Incorporated v. Yunus Moolla, Imraan Moolla, The Trustees Of Safy Trust, and Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd”Page 30 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The parties attempted to mediate the damages claim without success and the action proceedings claiming damages remains active in court.”

Concluded (4)

• Jenhanco, Inc. v. The Hertz Corporation, et al.

  concluded

  filed 2015-04-23 · United States District Court of the Central District of California; Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles · 2:15-cv-04191-ODW; originally BC579568

  “… (Case No. 2:15-cv-04191-ODW) was brought in the United States District Court of the Central District of California.”Page 34 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “Effective as of October 31, 2017, the parties resolved this dispute in a settlement involving the re-acquisition of the territory rights for the Dollar brand in Utah, the assignment of the agreements relating to the Salt Lake City Airport, and the acquisition of certain vehicles and other fixed assets, for an aggregate acquisition price of approximately $9,225,000. On November 14, 2017 the case was dismissed with ...”

• Federal Trade Commission

  concluded

  Government or regulatory action · Federal Trade Commission · 8923190

  “… (File No. 8923190). On December 18, 1991, Dollar signed an agreement which was filed with, and accepted by, the Federal Trade Commission on March 29, 1993.”Page 39 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The Order requires Dollar to disclose to customers the amount of all mandatory charges, not reasonably avoidable, in connection with any representation relating to the price of contemplated rentals.”

• More Automotive Products, Inc. v. Dollar Rent A Car, Inc.

  concluded

  U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico; U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; binding arbitration

  “… On February 22, 2024, Dollar terminated its franchise relationship with More Automotive, a franchisee operating in Puerto Rico, for various violations of the franchise agreement.”Page 30 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The former franchisee filed separate lawsuits in federal court in Puerto Rico and the Middle District of Florida, which were both dismissed. The matter was then sent to binding arbitration. In October, 2025, the plaintiff dismissed the arbitration.”

• Yunus Moolla, Imraan Moolla, and Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd v. Dollar Rent A Car Incorporated and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System Incorporated and CFAO Mobility (Pty) Ltd

  concluded

  Brought by a franchisee · High Court of South Africa · 2023-080290

  “… (Case No: 2023-080290) in the High Court of South Africa.”Page 30 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “In April 2024, the applicant (the SAFY parties) formally withdrew the remaining application and tendered legal costs (per court tariff). This application is now closed,”

Status not stated in the filing (1)

• Yunus Moolla, Imraan Moolla, SAFY Trust, Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd and Hired by Black Woman v. Dollar Rent A Car Incorporated and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System Incorporated, Hertz International Ltd. and CFAO Mobility (Pty) Ltd

  High Court of South Africa · 2023 - 098485, 2023/098485

  “… (Case No: 2023 – 098485, 2023/098485) in the High Court of South Africa.”Page 30 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The parties jointly proposed an order to the court – the court issued an order by way of agreement to address the return of Dollar Rent A Car Inc.’s and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System Inc’s. intellectual property.”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (5)

• DRAC Systems Corporation v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Canada Inc. and The Hertz Corporation

  pending

  The Hertz Corporation (the Parent); co-defendant DTAGC is an affiliate · filed 2021-02-01 · Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Canada

  “… DRAC formerly held a license agreement entered into on March 11, 1998 for the Province of Saskatchewan for the Dollar and Thrifty brands.”Page 31 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The matter is currently pending in the Saskatchewan Provincial Court in Canada and remains active.”

• Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Indenture Trustee v. The Hertz Corporation, et al.

  pending

  Brought by a third party · The Hertz Corporation (the Parent) · filed 2021-07-01 · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware; Third Circuit Court of Appeals; United States Supreme Court

  “… On July 1, 2021, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), in its capacity as indenture trustee of a series of unsecured notes issued by the Company and maturing in 2022, 2024, 2026, and 2028 (collectively, the “Notes”), filed a complaint against The Hertz Corporation and certain subsidiaries in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware related to Hertz’s repayment of the Notes as part of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy.”Page 31 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On January 27, 2026, Hertz paid approximately $346 million, which was the amount that was not disputed by the parties, including the interest through the date of payment. There will be a hearing on Wells Fargo’s claim to some additional interest on April 9, 2026.”

• Arquipelago Turismo S/A v. Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locacao de Veiculos Ltda.

  pending

  Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locacao de Veiculos Ltda. · Sao Paulo first instance court; Sao Paulo Court of Appeals; Superior Court of Justice, Brasilia; Federal Supreme Court

  “Following Hertz’s sale of its Brazilian business in 2017, Arquipelago, a former franchisee, filed suit against Car Rental seeking damages for the purported early termination of their franchise agreement.”Page 31 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “In December 2025, the President of the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals authorized both a Special Appeal and an Extraordinary Appeal to the Superior Court and Supreme Court. In addition to admitting both the Special Appeal and the Extraordinary Appeal to the Superior Court of Justice and the Federal Supreme Court, respectively, the President of the São Paulo Court of Justice also ordered the suspension of the Court of ...”

• Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locacao de Veiculos Ltda. and Hertz System, Inc. v. Pimentel & Pimenta Ltda.

  pending

  Brought by the franchisor · Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locacao de Veiculos Ltda. and Hertz System, Inc. · 8th Civil Court of the Santo Amaro District, Sao Paulo

  “1. Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locação de Veículos Ltda. and Hertz System, Inc. v. Pimentel & Pimenta Ltda. Car Rental Systems brought an inhibitory action against Hertz’s former subfranchisee in Brazil post-termination for unlawfully continuing to use Hertz brands and trademarks in violation of the subfranchisee agreement.”Page 31 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The matter is suspended while the prospect of a collection action remains pending. The situation remains unchanged. We are still awaiting the outcome of further asset searches aimed at identifying assets subject to attachment.” (page 32)

• Localiza Car Rental Systems S.A. and Hertz System, Inc. v. Rovema Locadora de Veiculos Ltda.

  pending

  Brought by the franchisor · Localiza Car Rental Systems S.A. and Hertz System, Inc. · 4th Civil Court of the Santo Amaro District, Sao Paulo; Sao Paulo Court of Appeal

  “Localiza Car Rental Systems S.A. and Hertz System, Inc. v. Rovema Locadora de Veículos Ltda. Legal action was taken against a former Hertz subfranchisee in Brazil for the undue use of the HERTZ brand and name.”Page 32 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “This appeal was rejected on February 18, 2026 and we are waiting to see if the former sub- franchisee seeks a motion for clarification from the Sao Paulo Court of Appeal or appeals to the Superior Court of Justice. The matter remains active.”

Concluded (4)

• Liberty Representacoes e Servicos Ltda. V. Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locacao de Veiculos Ltda.

  concluded

  Car Rental Systems do Brasil Locacao de Veiculos Ltda. (Hertz Brazil) · filed 2015-12-18 · Ninth Civil and Work Related Court of the District of Manaus/AM, Brazil · 0643614-93.2015.8.04.001

  “… (Case No. 0643614-93.2015.8.04.001) filed in the Ninth Civil and Work Related Court of the District of Manaus/AM, Brazil on December 18, 2015.”Page 33 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “In November 2016, the case was settled with the reacquisition by the franchisor entities of the Thrifty licensee’s master franchise rights in Brazil for approximately 7 million Brazilian real (USD $2 million).”

• Enrico Moretti v. The Hertz Corporation, et al.

  concluded

  Brought by a third party · The Hertz Corporation (the Parent); co-defendants include DTG and Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. · filed 2013-05-24 · Superior Court of California, San Francisco; U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware; U.S. Bankruptcy Court · CGC-13-531701; removed as 3:13-cv-02972-JSW

  “… (Superior Court of California, San Francisco, Case No. CGC-13-531701).”Page 37 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “on May 10, 2021, a term sheet was executed confirming a $20 million settlement in exchange for dismissal of the underlying putative class action and Class Proof of Claim. The final settlement agreement was executed on September 3, 2021, and a Motion for an Order Approving the Settlement Agreement was filed with the Bankruptcy Court on the same day. The Bankruptcy Court signed the approval order on September 21 ...”

• John Ellis, at al. v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, et al.

  concluded

  Brought by a third party · Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. (DTG), the franchisor's direct parent · filed 2013-12-18 · Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida · 13-CA-015274

  “… (Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida, Case No. 13-CA-015274).”Page 35 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “A low end settlement was effectuated in 2018 and 2019 with claimants receiving refunds totaling less than $4,000. The matter was closed in 2019.”

• In Re: Franchise No Poaching Provisions, State of Washington

  concluded

  Government or regulatory action · The Hertz Corporation (the Parent) · Attorney General of the State of Washington · 19-2-29646-1 SEA

  “… (File No. 19-2-29646-1 SEA). On November 8, 2019 The Hertz Corporation cooperated with the Attorney General of the State of Washington to submit an Order Approving an Entry of Assurance of Discontinuance in connection with the use of “No Poaching Provisions” in Franchise Agreements.”Page 39 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3