Payless Car Rental Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $626K – $1.6M
- Disclosed sales
- not disclosed
- SBA charge-off
- Under 10 loans (4)
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
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.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7
FDD Item 7 · 2025 filing
Initial investment breakdown
| Cost component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| 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
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 7.5% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 0.0% |
| Transfer fee | $3K |
| Renewal fee | $3K |
| Total fee load | 7.5% of rev |
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
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?
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: 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.
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
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 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
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).
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.
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?
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
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)
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
- 01HIGHPending consumer fraud litigation involving counter sales, administrative fees, and pricing misrepresentation — suggests systemic operational issues
- 02HIGHHistory of concluded litigation on deceptive practices (fuel charges, tolls) and misclassification — pattern of legal exposure
- 03MEDNo disclosed average revenue or net income — inability or unwillingness to demonstrate unit economics
- 04MINORTerritory not protected — direct competition from other franchisees and corporate-owned locations possible
- 05MINORHigh investment range ($625.5K-$1.6M) with 7.5% royalty on unknown revenue base — ROI cannot be calculated
- 06MINOROnly 109 units with unknown growth trajectory — suggests stagnant or declining system
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail18 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Concluded (2)
Investigation of Payless Car Rental System, Inc.
settledGovernment 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.
concludedThird-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
pendingThird-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
pendingThird-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
pendingThird-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.
pendingThird-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.
pendingThird-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
settledGovernment 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
settledThird-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
settledThird-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.
settledThird-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
settledThird-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.
settledThird-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.
concludedGovernment 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.
Source: FDD 2025 · 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 | Restricted |
| 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 | 18 |
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
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
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.