Payless Car Rental litigation history

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

  “… (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

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

  “… (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, master franchisor and subfranchisor

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

  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

  “… (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

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

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

• Travelers United, Inc. v. Budget Rent A Car System, Inc. et al

  pending

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

  “… (District of Columbia Superior Court, Case No. 2024-CAB-005736). On September 11, 2024, plaintiff Travelers United Inc. filed a complaint alleging that Budget has been systematically cheating consumers by refusing to rent vehicles for advertised prices.”Page 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

  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

  “… (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

  Avis Budget Group, Inc. · filed 2014-09-30 · United States District Court, District of New Jersey · 2:2014-cv-06072-CCC-JBC

  “… (United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:2014-cv-06072-CCC-JBC ) On September 30, 2014, Plaintiff Dawn Valli filed an alleged class action suit for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of good faith, and unjust enrichment arising from payment of speeding violation incurred in Washington DC and administrative fees.”Page 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)

  “… 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

  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

  “… (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

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

  “… (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

  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

  “… (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

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

  “… (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:11-CV-06537). On November 7, 2011, Jose Mendez filed a putative nationwide class action lawsuit for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith 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

  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

  “… (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

  “… (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

  “… (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.”