Requires motor vehicle rental companies to provide consumers with all associated fees at the time of rental including mandatory fees and extra costs.
This bill, titled the “car rentals integrity act,” would amend New York’s General Business Law to require motor vehicle rental companies to disclose the full cost of a rental at the time of rental. It defines new terms such as “mandatory fee,” “extra cost,” and “total price,” with the total price including all mandatory fees and renter-requested add-ons or services. The bill is aimed at ensuring consumers see the complete price upfront rather than being surprised by separate charges later.
The bill also revises existing rental-car advertising rules. Under current law, rental companies are restricted from advertising rates that omit charges the renter must pay, but the bill would strengthen that framework by requiring companies to provide renters with a list of all mandatory fees and extra costs, including airport surcharges, concession recovery fees, energy recovery surcharges, young driver surcharges, additional driver fees, and daily service fees. It removes prior language that allowed certain fees, such as airport fees, to be separately quoted in advertisements.
If enacted, the bill would amend section 396-z of the General Business Law and expand consumer disclosure obligations for rental vehicle companies operating in New York. The changes would affect how rental rates are advertised and presented, likely requiring companies to revise pricing displays, rental agreements, and checkout disclosures to ensure compliance with the new “total price” requirement.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is consumer-protection oriented, with the measure framed as a transparency and fairness reform for renters. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from lawmakers or stakeholders in the available record. The bill’s structure suggests its proponents are focused on preventing hidden fees and improving price clarity, while potential contention would likely center on the compliance burden for rental companies and whether all fees can be standardized into upfront pricing.
Notable points of contention would likely involve the treatment of optional services versus mandatory charges, and whether the bill’s broad disclosure requirements could complicate pricing practices at airports and other high-fee locations. Rental companies may argue that some charges are difficult to bundle into a single advertised rate, while consumer advocates would likely support the bill as a way to reduce deceptive pricing and improve comparison shopping.
The bill would amend General Business Law section 396-z to require rental vehicle companies to disclose all mandatory fees and extra costs at the time of rental and to advertise only rates that include all charges except taxes. It would eliminate prior statutory language that allowed certain fees, including airport fees, to be separately quoted, and would require a full list of charges such as surcharges and service fees to be provided to renters. The practical effect is to impose stronger price-transparency obligations on car rental businesses and to expand consumer disclosure rights in New York.
The bill appears to have a generally pro-consumer, anti-hidden-fee orientation, with its purpose centered on price transparency and rental-rate integrity. No committee discussion or vote history is available, so there is no recorded legislative debate in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the measure seems designed to address consumer frustration with add-on charges and to make rental pricing easier to understand and compare.
The main likely point of contention is between consumer advocates, who would favor upfront disclosure of all required charges, and rental car companies, which may object to the operational and pricing burden of bundling fees into advertised rates. Airport-related charges and other location-specific surcharges are especially likely to be debated because the bill removes prior permission to separately quote airport fees. Another possible issue is the distinction between mandatory fees and optional add-ons, since companies may argue that some services should remain separately priced while supporters may want maximum transparency.