While Hertz may be the brand getting the most negative publicity about its pivot to AI scanners, it’s not the only rental company using them.
In our previous coverage regarding the influx of AI scanners determining what constitutes damage on rental vehicles, we made a brief mention of several other rental agencies confirming that they either wanted to implement the technology or had already. However, we were unaware of any incidents that were as suspect as some of the examples we’ve seen from Hertz.
While Avis has tested AI systems in the past, it hasn’t said anything official about implementing the technology. Other brands don’t seem terribly interested in moving away from human-led assessments, with Sixt being the exception. Its system is functionally similar to the automated hardware being used by Hertz and, according to The Drive, it’s been caught engaging in shenanigans.
From The Drive:
Sixt is a rental car company that, like Hertz, has publicized its scanners. Its Car Gate system analyzes vehicles when customers first drive them away, and then again when they are returned. A key difference between Hertz’s application and Sixt’s is that the latter says it only issues damage claims to customers after a staff member has reviewed what the computer flagged. But in two eerily similar cases, Sixt customers told The Drive that the company invoiced them to repair damages that were proven to have occurred before their rentals, not during them.
One reader named Badi told us that they rented a Mazda CX-50 from Sixt at Atlanta Hartsfield Airport. Three weeks after they brought it back, having been “extremely careful with parking,” they were hit with a $605.82 bill for wheel damage. Badi requested proof, and Sixt responded with a photo “showing what appeared to be a pristine wheel,” in the customer’s words. Badi couldn’t even locate the purported issue until an employee zoomed in to highlight the scuff. [These photos were featured on the website].
Then, Badi noticed something: The image that Sixt was using as evidence was stamped with the date when they drove the Mazda away, not when they brought it back. This photo was taken during the initial scan to set a baseline for the current state of the vehicle so that the customer, ideally, isn’t charged for any blemishes already on the car. Badi said Sixt wanted to replace the entire wheel, to the tune of $600, for damage they didn’t cause. The Sixt employee they dealt with reportedly threatened collections if the invoice wasn’t paid in a certain timeframe.
This is arguably worse than what went down at Hertz, since the customer appears to have been charged for damages they didn’t create. This not only calls into question what some might consider predatory business tactics but the entire premise of the infallibility of AI and the surrounding automated collection systems.
“I immediately contacted Sixt, explaining they were using the wrong photo,” Badi told The Drive over email. “After escalating to management, they dropped the claim entirely. Had they not accidentally shared the exit photo, they likely would have proceeded with collections.”
Badi wasn’t the only aggrieved Sixt customer that reached out. Circumstances surrounding a second incident were nearly identical, right down to Sixt dropping the claim and apologizing when being confronted with physical evidence. Those images and details are available at The Drive for those interested.
The obvious concern here is that these examples may just be the tip of the iceberg. We don’t know how many customers were issued similar fines and simply assumed they caused the damage or felt it wasn’t worth fighting with the company. Furthermore, the above severely undermines the credibility of the usefulness of these automated systems.
[Images: Ken Wolter/Shutterstock; Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock; Solarisys/Shutterstock]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.
