Hertz 2007 Annual Report Download - page 174

HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
availability of property, goods or services by HERC and who did not provide express
permission for sending such faxes. The plaintiff asserts violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and common law conversion and the plaintiff is seeking
damages and costs of suit. In June 2007, we removed this action to the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas. In February 2008, the case was remanded to the District Court
of Wyandotte County, Kansas.
4. California Tourism Assessments
On November 14, 2007, Michael Shames, Gary Gramkow, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Coast Leasing Corp., The California Travel and Tourism
Commission, and Caroline Beteta was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. Shames purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all
individuals or entities that purchased rental car services from a defendant at a California situs
airport after January 1, 2007. The complaint alleges that the defendants agreed to charge
consumers a 2.5% assessment and not to compete with respect to this assessment, while
misrepresenting that this assessment is owed by consumers, rather than the rental car
defendants, to the California Travel and Tourism Commission. The complaint also alleges that
defendants agreed to pass through to consumers a fee known as the Airport Concession Fee,
which fee had previously been required to be included in the rental car defendants’ individual
base rates, without reducing their base rates. Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts
violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1, California’s Unfair Competition Law and California’s False
Advertising Law, and seeks treble damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys’
fees, and costs. The complaint also asserts separately against the California Travel and Tourism
Commission and Caroline Beteta, the Commission’s Executive Director, alleged violations of
The California Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. In January 2008, we filed a motion to dismiss.
On December 13, 2007, Thomas J. Comiskey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc., Avalon Global Group, Hertz Corporation, Enterprise
Rent-A-Car, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Inc., Rent4Less, Inc., Autorent Car
Rental, Inc., Pacific Rent-A-Car, Inc., ABC Rent-A-Car, Inc., The California Travel and Tourism
Commission, and Dale E. Bonner was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. Comiskey purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all
persons and entities that have paid an assessment since the inception of the Passenger Car
Rental Industry Tourism Assessment Program in California on January 1, 2007. The complaint
alleges that California’s Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism Assessment Program, as
included in the California Tourism Marketing Act, violates the United States Constitution’s
Commerce Clause and First Amendment, both directly and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Article I, §§ 2 and 3 of the California Constitution, and Article XIX, § 2 of the California
Constitution. The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, that all unspent
assessments collected and to be collected be held in trust, damages, interest, attorneys’ fees,
and costs. On December 14, 2007, Isabel S. Cohen filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California a complaint virtually identical to that filed in Comiskey. In
February 2008, the court consolidated Comiskey and Cohen, captioned the consolidated
action ‘‘In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation,’’ and ordered the plaintiffs to serve a single
154