Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—Cal. App.: Dollar Rent A Car eludes claims over 61¢ tax, (Mar 4, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

A consumer failed to demonstrate that he suffered actual injury or lost money or property as a result of renting from Dollar Rent A Car. Dismissal of the renter’s California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claims concerning a 61¢ tax was therefore upheld by a California appellate court (Boling v. DTG Operations, Inc., March 2, 2015, Bedsworth, W.).

Mark Boling reserved a vehicle for 24 hours on Dollar Rent A Car’s website, which identified a 61¢ Maricopa County, Arizona tax. However, after arriving at the Dollar rental booth in Phoenix over two hours early, Boling signed new paperwork because he anticipated keeping the car for over 24 hours. The new paperwork charged him an additional $17 for the rental, including a $2.50 county tax charge. Boling subsequently returned the vehicle within 24 hours and persuaded Dollar to apply the 24-hour rate. The $2.50 county tax assessment appeared on the final receipt. Boling sued Dollar for violating the UCL and the CLRA, based on the 61¢ tax representation on Dollar’s website. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dollar, finding that the original deal was canceled when he filled out paperwork to rent a vehicle for over 24 hours, and that the tax was correctly shown on the new paperwork. Boling timely appealed.

UCL. With regard to Boling’s UCL claim, the question before the court was whether Boling suffered any actual injury or lost money or property as a result of renting a car from Dollar. It determined that the 61¢ representation on Dollar’s website was irrelevant, because Boling arrived early and wanted to change the deal materially. Consequently, the estimated figure on Dollar’s website did not cause him to lose money, as it was no longer applicable when he actually entered into a car rental agreement with Dollar for an over 24 hour period. Summary judgment was therefore appropriate on the UCL claim.

CLRA. Similarly, relief under the CLRA is specifically limited to those who suffer damage. The court found that Boling was not damaged, because he did not accept the offer presented on Dollar’s website; he entered into a new deal at his own request, for more money, because he wanted to keep the car for a longer period of time; and the information on the new paperwork was accurate. Boling was therefore unable to present evidence of a triable issue of fact that he suffered any damages as a result of the representation of the county tax on the Dollar website, and summary judgment was therefore properly granted with regard to the CLRA claim.

Attorney fees. In a separate order, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s denial of Boling’s request for over $300,000 in attorney fees. First, the court noted that Boling’s lawsuit did not survive a motion for summary judgment, and he was therefore not a "successful party" in the litigation. Further, the court concluded that this lawsuit did not motivate Dollar to change its behavior. Rather, it was determined that Boling’s pre-litigation notice caused Dollar to rectify the website problem concerning the county tax, not the lawsuit. The appellate court consequently determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an award of attorney fees.

The case number is G049360.

Attorneys: James E. Mahfood for Mark Boling. Michael B. Garfinkle (Perkins Coie) for DTG Operations, Inc.

Companies: DTG Operations, Inc.

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews