Skip to main content
FranchiseVerdict
Payless Car Rental logo

Payless Car Rental Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026

AutomotiveNJFranchising since 2001
CAverageAverage38/100Editorial grade from public filings; not investment advice.
Investment
$626K – $1.6M
Disclosed sales
not disclosed
SBA charge-off
Under 10 loans (4)

Investment, fees, disclosed sales, units, SBA record and risk, as one PDF. Free; no spam; one click to unsubscribe.

FV-01905FDD 2025Data QualityExcellent86%
Manager-run OKYes: Protected territory

Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records

Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology

Payless Car Rental is a value car-rental franchise serving budget-minded leisure and business travelers. Franchisees run rental locations managing the fleet, reservations, and counter operations.

FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026

A Payless Car Rental franchise requires a total initial investment of $626K – $1.6M, including a $45K 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: C (Average), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →

Sources, dates and evidence

FDD issued: · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: medium - issued 12 to 24 months ago; a newer filing is likely on file

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
$626K – $1.6M
50th pct Automotive
Avg gross sales
N/A
Royalty
7.5%
37th pct Automotive
Units
109
33rd pct Automotive
SBA charge-off
N/A

Quick verdict · Automotive · color = vs category peers

Total Investment
$626K – $1.6M
Median $368K
above median ↑, worse than category
Franchise Fee
$45K
Median $35K
above median ↑, worse than category
Liquid Capital Req'd
$55K – $72K
Median $40K
above median ↑, worse than category
Avg Revenue
Not disclosed
Franchisor makes none
Royalty Rate
7.5%
Median 6.0%
above median ↑, worse than category
Ongoing Fees
7.5% of rev
Median 8.0%
near median
SBA Charge-Off Rate
Under 10 loans (4)
Insufficient SBA coverage: 4 loans, rate hidden below 10
System Size
109 units
Median 92 units
above median ↑, better than category
Turnover Rate
N/A
Median 2.4%
below median ↓, better than category
Territory
Protected, not exclusive
Limits on the franchisor opening nearby; not an exclusive zone
Owner-Operator
Optional
Can hire a manager
Litigation
18 cases
Review carefully

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 $626K – $1.6M including a $45K 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 C (Average), verdict score 38/100 (higher is better).
  • GROWTHFlat: no net change in franchised outlets in the latest year (0 opened, 0 closed) (Item 20).
  • LEGAL18 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of the 15 listed on this page, 2 name the franchisor itself, 13 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
Payless Car Rental System, Inc.
Parent company
Payless Car Rental, Inc. (PCR)
FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2025 FDD
Ultimate parent
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2025 FDD
Predecessor
Payless Car Rental, Inc. (formerly Avalon Global Group, Inc.)
Prior franchisor entity
Incorporated in
Florida
HQ
379 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, NJ 07054
Auditor
Not specified in text (ABG consolidated audited financials in Exhibit G)
Audited financials
Franchisor revenue
$11.8B
vs $12.0B prior year

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 2025 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
2001
FDD year
2025
States available
5

Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?

Entry cost runs 204% above the typical automotive franchise.

Total investment (Item 7)$626K – $1.6MCited, not corroborated — printed on page 30 of the 2025 FDD. Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
Franchise fee$45,000Not cited — published from our reading of the franchisor's disclosure document; the page it is printed on has not been located.
Royalty7.5%Cited, not corroborated — printed on page 22 of the 2025 FDD (Item 6). Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
Ad fund0.0%Not cited — published from our reading of the franchisor's disclosure document; the page it is printed on has not been located.
Working capital$55K – $72K

Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7

FDD Item 7 · 2025 filing

Initial investment breakdown

Payless Car Rental: Item 7 initial investment breakdown
Cost componentLowHigh
Initial franchise fee$45K$45K
Working capital (3–6 mo)$55K$72K
Equipment, build-out, other$526K$1.5M
Total initial investment$626K$1.6M

Source: Payless Car Rental 2025 FDD, Items 5 and 7[2]. “Equipment, build-out, other” is computed as total minus disclosed line items above.

Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate

The Vitals

Total investment
$626K – $1.6M
Middle of category vs category
Liquid capital req'd
$55K – $72K
Middle of category vs category
Franchise fee
$45K
Top 40% of category vs category
Royalty
7.5%
typical 6–8%
Ad fund
0.0%
typical 3–5%
Total fee load
7.5%
vs 9–13% typical

Ongoing fees · Item 6

Payless Car Rental: Item 6 recurring fees
FeeAmount
Royalty7.5% of gross sales
Marketing / ad fund0.0%
Transfer fee$3K
Renewal fee$3K
Total fee load7.5% of rev
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
Blue values = direct from FDD (Item 7 investment, Item 19 revenue, Item 6 fees)Not set = no filing supplies it and we will not substitute one. Enter your own

Payless Car Rental 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 Payless Car Rental unit return on the cash you put in?

From FDDNot set — you supply itYou overrode an FDD value
Revenue · per unit, per yearnot set
Item 19 not disclosed. Enter your own revenue assumption
Franchisor take · royalty + ad fundFDD
typ 6–8%
typ 3–5%
Operating costs · not in any FDDnot set

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.

Total invested capital · what you put in to openFDD
FDD Item 7: $626K–$1.6M (midpoint used)
FDD reports $55K–$72K

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.


Store EBITDA · annual
—
EBITDA margin
—
Total invested
$1.2M
Payback
—
Single-unit only. A multi-unit portfolio gives up roughly 5–15% of this to shared services (corporate G&A) before reaching the ~10-unit break-even point.

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: 2025 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.

Showing the headline figures — all 118 extracted fields are in the Full FDD Report · $19 →

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 7.5% (near the Automotive median).

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 -50.0% 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 Payless Car Rental Compares

Metric
Payless Car Rental
Category median
vs median
Investment
$1.1M
$368Kmiddle half $178K–$858K · n=95
Above median, worse than category
Revenue
N/A
$1.0Mmiddle half $695K–$1.8M · n=38
N/A
Unit Count
109
92middle half 23–293 · n=94
Above median, better than category

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?

Total units109Verified — printed on page 73 of the 2025 FDD (Item 20), and the table's own arithmetic closes on it three ways.
3-yr growth-50.0% (worth scrutinizing)

Source: FDD 2025 · Item 20

Unit growth

Item 20 · unit dynamics

The Growth Chart

Total units
109
Opened
0
Last reporting year
Closed
0
Turnover rate
N/A
Company-owned
97
Corporate units in the system
% franchised
11%
vs corporate-owned
Net growth (3-yr)
-50.0%
Net unit change over 3 years
3-yr CAGR
-50.0%
Compounded over last 3 years

Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers

Signed, not yet open
0
0.00 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
Projected new
0
Franchisor's next-year forecast
2022
24
Franchised units
2023
12-12
Franchised units
2024
12±0
Franchised units

Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.

Item 20 · 5 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).

AK
ME
VT
NH
MA
RI
CT
NY
NJ
PA
DE
MD
DC
WA
OR
CA
NV
ID
MT
WY
UT
CO
AZ
NM
ND
SD
NE
KS
OK
TX
MN
IA
MO
AR
LA
WI
IL
MS
TN
MI
IN
KY
AL
OH
WV
GA
VA
NC
SC
FL
HI
Active operators · 5 states
No contacts on file

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.

Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list

12 current owners across 5 states.

  • PA 7
  • ND 2
  • CA 1
  • FL 1
  • MO 1

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.

Growth insight

A system losing more than 10% of its units year-over-year is a red flag. Check whether closures are concentrated in specific regions.

SBA loan performance

Government records

SBA Loan Data

Aggregated from SBA loan disclosures. This brand has only 4 7(a) loans on file; statistical reliability is limited below 10 loans.

Total loans
4
Loan volume
$1.1M
Median loan
$263K
average
Charge-off rate
Under 10 loans (4)
Insufficient SBA coverage: 4 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 (4)
5-yr charge-off
Under 10 loans (4)
Loans approved 2021+
Active lenders
4
Defaults
N/A

Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.

What could kill this investment?

SBA charge-offUnder 10 loans (4)
Verdict score38/100 (higher is better)
Litigation18 cases
Auditor going-concern doubtNo (favorable vs category)

Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21

Risk analysis

FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21

Risk & Legal

CAverage38Verdict score 38/100
Moderate confidence±10 pts
2848

Litigation (Item 3)

Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).

Multiple pending cases including class actions involving alleged fraudulent counter sales (Bacon), consumer fraud (Valli), shareholder derivative (De Angelis), and advertised pricing disputes (Travelers United). Several historical cases settled including Canadian Competition Bureau ($3.25M), Mendez e-toll ($9.4M total), Venerus ($33.95M available), and others.

Largest disclosed settlement: $1,758,000

Bankruptcy (Item 4)

None disclosed

Audited financials (Item 21)

Yes · Not specified in text (ABG consolidated audited financials in Exhibit G)

Franchisor revenue (Item 21)

Yr 1: $11789.0MYr 2: $12008.0M

Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)

Item 21 exhibit (Exhibit G) presents the consolidated audited financial statements of Avis Budget Group, Inc. (the franchisor's parent/guarantor entity), fiscal years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, audited by Deloitte & Touche LLP (PCAOB ID No. 34). Only three pages were provided (exhibit cover p116, index p117, and the first page of the Independent Auditor's Report p118). The actual financial statement schedules — Consolidated Statements of Operations (index p.6), Consolidated Balance Sheets (index p.8), and Stockholders' Equity (index p.11) — are NOT present in the supplied images, so no figures (assets, liabilities, net worth, revenue, net income) could be read. All numeric fields are null pending the missing statement pages.

ⓘ 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: Yes
  • Must buy proprietary products: Yes
  • Restricted to system-approved products: Yes

Score breakdown · what drove the 38 / 100 verdict

  1. 01HIGHPending consumer fraud litigation involving counter sales, administrative fees, and pricing misrepresentation — suggests systemic operational issues
  2. 02HIGHHistory of concluded litigation on deceptive practices (fuel charges, tolls) and misclassification — pattern of legal exposure
  3. 03MEDNo disclosed average revenue or net income — inability or unwillingness to demonstrate unit economics
  4. 04MINORTerritory not protected — direct competition from other franchisees and corporate-owned locations possible
  5. 05MINORHigh investment range ($625.5K-$1.6M) with 7.5% royalty on unknown revenue base — ROI cannot be calculated
  6. 06MINOROnly 109 units with unknown growth trajectory — suggests stagnant or declining system

Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification

Showing the headline figures — all 118 extracted fields are in the Full FDD Report · $19 →

Full litigation history from the FDD (Items 3 and 4) →

Litigation case detail18 matters · Item 3

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (2)

  • Investigation of Payless Car Rental System, Inc.

    settled

    Government or regulatory action · filed 2012-08-03 · Florida Attorney General · L 12-3-1070

    “Investigation of Payless Car Rental System, Inc. (Florida Attorney General Investigation L 12-3- 1070) On August 3, 2012, the Florida Attorney General initiated an investigation of alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by Payless Car Rental and its affiliate-owned car rental outlets in Florida.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“The matter settled. The resolution involved paying $150,000 in investigative costs to the office of the Attorney General and the creation of a $100,000 fund which will be used for potential reimbursements to customers who file a claim form obtained from the Florida Attorney generals office/website.”

  • Pi-Net International, Inc. v. Payless Car Rental System, Inc.

    concluded

    Third-party plaintiff · filed 2012 · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · CV12-4394

    “Pi-Net International, Inc. v. Payless Car Rental System, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV12-4394). In August 2012, Pi-Net International, Inc. (“Pi-Net”) served a lawsuit upon Payless Car Rental System, Inc. (“Payless”). The lawsuit alleged that Payless had infringed two patents”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“Litigation was stayed pending an inter partes review and the case was administratively closed on August 15, 2019.”

Parent, affiliates and predecessor

Pending (5)

  • 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

    Third-party plaintiff · Avis Budget Group, Inc. (nominal defendant) and its directors · filed 2024-04-26 · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2:24-cv-05687

    “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 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:24-cv-05687).”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
  • Travelers United, Inc. v. Avis Rent A Car System, LLC et al

    pending

    Third-party plaintiff · Avis Rent A Car System, LLC · filed 2024-09-11 · District of Columbia Superior Court · 2024-CAB-005792

    “Travelers United, Inc. v. Avis Rent A Car System, LLC et al (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
  • Travelers United, Inc. v. Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. et al

    pending

    Third-party plaintiff · Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. · filed 2024-09-11 · District of Columbia Superior Court · 2024-CAB-005736

    “Travelers United, Inc. v. Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. et al (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 15 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

    Third-party plaintiff · Avis Budget Group, Inc. and Payless Car Rental, Inc. · filed 2016-09-26 · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2:16-cv-05939-KM-JBC

    “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. (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:16-cv- 05939-KM-JBC).”Page 14 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

    Third-party plaintiff · Avis Budget Group, Inc. · 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 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“As of December 2024, ABG has filed an appeal to the 3rd Circuit Court on the district court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration.”

Concluded (7)

  • Canadian Competition Authority

    settled

    Government or regulatory action · Avis Budget Group, Inc. 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 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“The case was settled with ABG paying $3.25 million on June 2, 2016.”

  • 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

    Third-party plaintiff · Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., and Avis Budget Group, Inc. · filed 2013-12-31 · Superior Court for the State of California for the District of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino · CIVRS 1308871

    “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 (Superior Court for the State of California for the District of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, Case No. CIVRS 1308871).”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“The parties reached a settlement at Mediation in November, 2018. 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.” (page 17)

  • 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

    settled

    Third-party plaintiff · Avis Budget Group, Inc. · filed 2013 · Superior Court of the State of California for Ventura County · 56-2013004455653 CU-NP-VTA

    “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 (Superior Court of the State of California for Ventura County, Case No. 56-2013004455653 CU-NP-VTA). On or about May 1, 2012, Plaintiff purchased the operating rights to the Budget Oxnard location”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“The case settled for $400,000 and was dismissed on December 22, 2015.”

  • Venerus v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC et al.

    settled

    Third-party plaintiff · Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC (ABCR) and Budget · 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 16 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

    Third-party plaintiff · Avis Budget Group, Inc. · filed 2011-11-07 · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2:11-CV-06537

    “Jose Mendez v. Avis Budget Group and Highway Toll Administration (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 for alleged failure to disclose E-Toll activations”Page 15 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 16)

  • Luigi Ambrose, et al. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc.

    settled

    Third-party plaintiff · Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., and Avis Budget Group, Inc. · filed 2011-10-14 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:11-CV-09992-CAS-AGR

    “Luigi Ambrose, et al. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc. (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:11-CV- 09992-CAS-AGR). On October 14, 2011, after class certification was denied in the Duke v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. action described above,”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“The parties filed a joint notice of settlement on February 3, 2015 and the court entered an order of dismissal on March 10, 2015.”

  • In the Matter of Budget Rent-A-Car Systems Inc.

    concluded

    Government or regulatory action · Budget Rent-A-Car Systems Inc. (BRAC, 'an affiliate of the Predecessor') · Federal Trade Commission · Docket No. C3674

    “In the Matter of Budget Rent-A-Car Systems Inc. (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”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“The Consent Order required Systems to pay the FTC $75,000 for consumer redress.”

Status not stated in the filing (1)

  • In the Matter of Budget Rent A Car System, Inc.

    Government or regulatory action · Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. · 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 15 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.”

This list shows 15 of the 18 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.

What are you signing up for?

Ongoing fees run about 7.5% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.

Initial term10 yrs
Renewal term5 yrs
TerritoryProtected, not exclusive
Initial training73 hrs

Source: FDD 2025 · Items 11, 12, 17

FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal

Contract & Territory Detail

Initial term10 years
Renewal term5 years
Territory typeProtected territory
Protected territoryYes
Exclusive territoryℹNo
Territory population25,000
Online sales rightsℹRestricted
Franchisor can competeYes
Hire a manager?Allowed
Owner-operatorOptional
Non-compete (years)ℹ1 year
Non-compete (miles)ℹ5 mi
Right of first refusalℹYes
RoFR response window60 days
Transfer requires consentYes
Termination notice180 days
Curable defaultsℹ2
Mandatory arbitrationNo
Jury trial waiverNo
Governing lawNJ
Litigation count18
View Item 3 litigation summary

Multiple pending cases including class actions involving alleged fraudulent counter sales (Bacon), consumer fraud (Valli), shareholder derivative (De Angelis), and advertised pricing disputes (Travelers United). Several historical cases settled including Canadian Competition Bureau ($3.25M), Mendez e-toll ($9.4M total), Venerus ($33.95M available), and others.

Items 10, 11

Training & Operations

Classroom training
73 hrs
On-the-job training
0 hrs
Training location
Workday Learning - Online Training (web-based)
Ongoing training
Required
Site selection
Franchisee selects site subject to Payless approval
Franchisor financing
Not offered
Item 10
POS system
Wizard (operated by ABCR/Wizard Services, Inc.)
Operating tech stack

Items 5 & 11

Franchisor Support

✓Site selection assistance
✓Grand opening support
✗Lease negotiation help

Technology: Wizard (operated by ABCR/Wizard Services, Inc.)

Item 20 · call current owners

Franchisee Contacts

12 owners to call

Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20

Unlock 12 contacts · $49
Free preview
717-616-••••PA
Unlock all 12 contacts
619-296-••••CA
941-741-••••FL
701-478-••••ND
814-266-••••PA

Frequently asked questions

Frequently Asked Questions

How much does it cost to open a Payless Car Rental franchise?

The total investment to open a Payless Car Rental franchise ranges from $626K – $1.6M, with an initial franchise fee of $45K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).

What do Payless Car Rental franchise owners earn?

Payless Car Rental 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 Payless Car Rental?

Payless Car Rental is franchised by Payless Car Rental System, Inc.. Its parent company is Payless Car Rental, Inc. (PCR). The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Avis Budget Group, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.

What is Item 19 in the Payless Car Rental 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 Payless Car Rental FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.

What is Payless Car Rental's franchise failure rate?

SBA 7(a) loan charge-off data is not available for Payless Car Rental (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 Payless Car Rental franchise locations are there?

As of their most recent FDD filing, Payless Car Rental has 109 total units in the United States, including 12 franchised units and 97 company-owned units.

Is Payless Car Rental a good franchise to buy?

FranchiseVerdict rates Payless Car Rental as a C-grade franchise with a verdict score of 38 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 Payless Car Rental, 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.