Advertisement
Follow ABA
myABA | Log In
JOIN THE ABA
Membership
ABA Groups
Resources for Lawyers
Publishing
CLE
Advocacy
News
SHOP ABA
About Us
MEMBER DIRECTORY
Home
Membership
Events & CLE
Committees
Initiatives & Awards
Publications
About Us
Contact Us
Volume 14, Number 6 July/August 2005
Rent a Car, Rent a Spy
Governments react to new uses for GPS
By Elizabeth C. Yen
It started with a bit of new technology. It ended with at least a few legislatures
coming down really hard. So much for unbridled innovation in the marketplace.
Global positioning system (GPS) tracking devices have been available for several
years in motor vehicles, for the primary purpose of offering drivers navigational
assistance. However, these devices also enable third parties (including law
enforcement and car rental companies) to see where and at what speeds a vehicle
has been driven. In Connecticut and California, two locally owned and operated
car rental companies were recently required to discontinue using GPS information
as a means of enforcing speeding and mileage surcharge provisions in their rental
contracts.
Several states (including New York, Connecticut and California) have also enacted
legislation restricting the car rental industry's ability to use GPS information. The
innovative business practices of a very small number of companies have
apparently caused industry-wide legislative repercussions.
Recent Connecticut litigation involved a car rental company's use of GPS
information to determine the number of times a customer had exceeded 79 miles
an hour for two or more continuous minutes. The contract included a provision
allowing the rental company to impose a speeding surcharge of $150 for each
speeding episode lasting two or more minutes. These surcharges typically
appeared on a customer's credit or debit card statement several weeks after the
rental vehicle had been returned.
CALENDAR
Some customers did not receive advance notice of these surcharges, and
therefore unwittingly exceeded their credit limits or overdrew their deposit
accounts. (See American Car Rental v. Commissioner of Consumer Protection, 273
Conn. 296, 2005 WL 756772 (Conn., April 12, 2005). See also Turner v. American
Car Rental, 2004 WL 1888947 (Superior Court 2004), where the jury awarded the
plaintiff the $450 that had been charged to his credit card for three separate
instances of speeding during the course of a short-term car rental, plus court
costs and $6,000 in attorneys' fees.)
In an administrative proceeding initiated by the Connecticut Department of
Consumer Protection against the car rental company, the company argued that
the $150 charge was reasonable liquidated damages for the additional wear and
tear caused to its vehicles by customers who engaged in unlawful speeding.
However, an administrative hearing officer determined, based on the testimony of
various expert witnesses, that the excess wear and tear associated with driving
one of the rental car company's cars at 80 miles per hour for two continuous
minutes was closer to 37 cents.
Following the rental car company's unsuccessful appeal from the administrative
proceeding to a Connecticut trial court, the Connecticut Supreme Court recently
affirmed that the $150 charge was an unenforceable penalty, unsupported by
evidence of commensurate vehicle wear and tear, and a violation of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The court held that, even if use of GPS information to enforce the speeding
surcharge provision of the rental contract was clearly disclosed in advance to a
renter, the rental company could not surcharge its customer $150 for twominute-long episodes of speeding, since the company failed to present evidence
showing a reasonable relationship between the $150 surcharge and the increased
depreciation, wear and tear suffered by a vehicle because of speeding.
The Connecticut Supreme Court noted that a renter who maintained a speed of 80
miles an hour for 30 continuous minutes would be charged $150 according to the
terms of the rental contract. A renter who maintained a speed of 80 miles an hour
for only two minutes would also be charged $150, indicating that the $150
surcharge did not reasonably correlate to vehicle wear and tear. In addition, a
renter who maintained a speed of 80 miles an hour for 15 continuous minutes,
and then decelerated to 75 miles per hour for five minutes, followed by an
acceleration to 85 miles an hour for 10 continuous minutes, would be charged
$300 for two episodes of speeding.
The court observed that, based on the administrative hearing officer's factual
determinations, "a customer would have to travel more than 1,070 miles at high
speeds, without decelerating below 80 miles per hour, to cause $150 of excess
wear on the vehicle. Presumably, the customer would have to stop to refuel
several times, especially if driving at high speeds, to travel that distance. Each
time the customer decelerated below 80 miles per hour, as would be required to
refuel, the subsequent acceleration above 79 miles per hour would trigger another
'occurrence' and another speeding fee. Thus, the rental vehicle could never suffer
enough additional wear due solely to high speed driving to qualify the plaintiff's
speeding fee as a liquidated damages charge."
The California attorney general also recently took administrative action against a
leasing company that used GPS information to surcharge its customers. (See a
California attorney general press release of Nov. 9, 2004, regarding settlement in
the matter of State of California v. Acceleron Corp. et al., copies available at
http://www.ag.ca.gov/
newsalerts/2004/04129.htm
and
http://www.ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/2004/04- 129_settle.pdf.)
The California rental company's contract disclosed the fact that a higher mileage
charge would apply if the car were driven out of state, but apparently did not
disclose that GPS information would be used to determine whether the car had
been driven out of state. In addition, the car rental company apparently
advertised unlimited mileage (no per-mile charges), without clearly disclosing the
geographic limitations associated with the unlimited mileage feature.
Due in part to the practices of these two leasing companies, the California and
Connecticut legislatures enacted laws restricting the ability of leasing companies
to use GPS information. In California, car rental companies may no longer use GPS
information to impose surcharges, fines or penalties relating to the renter's use of
a leased vehicle. (See California Civil Code Section 1936(o).) GPS information may
be used by a California rental company to help locate a stolen, abandoned or
missing vehicle, provided that this is clearly and conspicuously disclosed in
advance to the customer.
The California attorney general's recent administrative settlement with Acceleron
Corp. goes a step further, requiring this disclosure to be included in ads, during
the reservation process, and at the rental counter, and by requiring the rental
company to make vehicles available to renters, on request, that do not contain
functioning GPS or other electronic surveillance devices.
GPS information also may be used by a California car rental company "for the sole
purpose of determining the date and time the vehicle is returned to the rental
company, and the total mileage driven and the vehicle fuel level of the returned
vehicle," provided that the technology is used for such purposes "only after the
renter has returned the vehicle to the rental company."
California Civil Code Section 1936(o) also allows a rental vehicle to include "GPS
based technology that provides navigation assistance to the occupants of the
rental vehicle," provided that "the rental company does not use, access or obtain
any information relating to the renter's use of the rental vehicle that was obtained
using that technology, except for the purposes of discovering or repairing a defect
in the technology and the information may then be used only for that purpose."
In addition, a rental vehicle may include electronic surveillance technology for
remote locking or unlocking of the vehicle at the request of the renter, or for
vehicle roadside assistance at the request of the renter, provided the car rental
company only uses this technology for such purposes. GPS information may also
be disclosed by a California car rental company to law enforcement "pursuant to a
subpoena or search warrant."
New York similarly prohibits short-term car rental companies from using GPS
information "to determine or impose any costs, fees, charges or penalties on an
authorized driver for such driver's use of a rental vehicle," subject to an exception
for the recovery of "a vehicle that is lost, misplaced or stolen." (See McKinney's
General Business Law Section 396-z, Subsection 13-a.) Other states (such as
Massachusetts) are contemplating similar legislation.
All of this serves as a useful reminder that, although a business may use entirely
legal and commonly available technology, together with full contractual
disclosure, that may not be enough to insulate the business from administrative,
legislative or legal action, particularly if the business' practice is perceived to be
overreaching, unfair or deceptive. A business may operate entirely within the four
corners of the letter of the law, but if it does not exercise sufficient self- restraint,
disgruntled consumers may demand a governmental response that industry will
have difficulty counteracting.
Connecticut's legislative response to press reports about the use of GPS and
similar devices in vehicles, both within and outside of Connecticut, was
particularly harsh. Connecticut enacted nonuniform provisions concerning the use
of GPS, remote ignition "kill" and other "electronic self- help" devices by both
secured creditors and lessors, as part of the state's versions of UCC Articles 9 and
2A.
Connecticut's version of UCC Section 9-609 prohibits "the use of electronic means
to locate the collateral" or to "render equipment unusable" unless (a) "the debtor
separately agrees to a term of the security agreement authorizing electronic selfhelp that requires [advance] notice of exercise" and (b) the secured party gives
the debtor at least 15 days' advance written notice of its intent to use electronic
self-help. In addition, "electronic self-help may not be used if the secured party
has reason to know that its use will result in substantial injury or harm to the
public health or safety or grave harm to the public interest substantially affecting
third parties not involved in the dispute." (See Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 42a-9609(d).)
Comparable provisions appear in Connecticut's nonuniform version of UCC Article
2A, Section 2A-702, applicable to both short-term and long-term consumer and
commercial leases of personal property, and in Connecticut's nonuniform version
of the Uniform Consumer Leases Act. (See Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 42a-2A702(e) and 42- 419(d).)
In contrast to GPS devices, remote ignition "kill" devices allow a rental company
or other third party to effectively render the vehicle nonfunctional, posing
potential public safety concerns and also implicating self-help repossession
statutes. (See, for example, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 42a-2A- 717(a) and 42a9-609(a)(2).)
GPS devices do not appear to present the same public safety or repossessionrelated questions as ignition "kill" devices, but were nonetheless lumped together
with ignition "kill" devices in behind-the-scenes Connecticut legislative drafting
discussions that culminated in the state's current statutory restrictions on the use
of "electronic self-help" to locate or repossess collateral, or to make collateral
unusable.
The legislative response in Connecticut to the use of GPS tracking devices by a
very small number of players in the relevant marketplace was arguably
unnecessarily broad in scope, by applying to both long-term and short- term
vehicle leases, as well as the use of GPS tracking devices in vehicles by secured
parties, without any exception for large-dollar or commercial-purpose
transactions. Long-term commercial leasing and finance companies that did not
contribute to the GPS-related concerns recently addressed by the Connecticut
Supreme Court may now be effectively precluded from using GPS or similar
electronic technology to locate their leased or financed personal property postdefault.
The California, New York and Connecticut legislative responses to the use of GPS
devices in rental vehicles provide cautionary examples of governmental responses
to the use of technology for purposes not originally intended nor anticipated by
manufacturers.
State and federal "do not call" and "do not fax" restrictions are additional recent
examples of governmental responses to widespread business use of legal, readily
available, inexpensive technology for legitimate marketing purposes that evolved
with inadequate industry self-regulation and insufficient industry attention to
consumer privacy concerns.
Once a consumer protection matter becomes the subject of legislative or
regulatory scrutiny, it may be too late for an industry to use "best practices" or
other forms of self-regulation as an effective way of minimizing government
intervention.
Yen is a partner in the Connecticut office of Hudson Cook, LLP, headquartered
in Maryland. She is a past chair of the Truth in Lending Subcommittee of the
Consumer Financial Services Committee of the ABA Section of Business Law.
The views expressed in this article are personal and not necessarily those of
any employer, client, constituent or affiliate of the author. Yen is admitted to
practice in Connecticut only. Her e-mail is [email protected].
Back to Top
For the Public
Resources For
ABA Approved Law Schools
Law School Accreditation
Public Education
Bar Associations
Diversity
Government and Public
Sector Lawyers
Public Resources
Judges
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual &
Transgender Lawyers
Military Lawyers
Senior Lawyers
Solo and Small Firms
Stay Connected
Twitter
Facebook
ABA Career Center
Contact Us Online
Women Lawyers
Young Lawyers
Law Students
Lawyers of Color
Lawyers with Disabilities
Terms of Use
|
Code of Conduct
|
Privacy Policy
|
Your Privacy Rights
|
Copyright & IP Policy
|
Advertising & Sponsorship
|
© 2012 ABA, All Rights Reserved