--- title: "It’s Not Just Hertz: AI Damage Scanners Are Spreading to More Rental Car Companies" date: "2025-07-24" modified: "2025-07-24" authors: - name: "Adam Ismail" job_title: "Senior Editor" link: "https://www.thedrive.com/authors/adam-ismail" url: "https://www.thedrive.com/news/its-not-just-hertz-more-rental-car-brands-are-using-ai-scanners-to-nickel-and-dime-you" categories: - "News" --- # It’s Not Just Hertz: AI Damage Scanners Are Spreading to More Rental Car Companies ![Customer looks at UVeye rental damage report on phone]() *\UVeye\* The attention on digital vehicle rental scanners using artificial intelligence may have [started with Hertz](), but it's not the only player in the business that has introduced the technology—and it surely won't be the last. Competitor Sixt is using scanners, too, and two customers recently wrote *The Drive* to explain how the company charged them for damage it later admitted was already present on its vehicles. There is reason to believe Avis may also be rolling out digital inspections, too. After [my last story]() on the topic, multiple messages landed in my inbox telling of experiences with rental car damage scanners. Some were uneventful, and others, a bit more fraught. Most stories involved Hertz and Sixt, but notably, one individual said they had to drive their Avis rental through a scanner at LAX, while another claimed that Enterprise was using a scanner at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. Neither noted any problems in those instances, but these reports show that this technology may be gaining ground even more quickly than the public realizes. *The Drive* separately reached out to Avis Budget Group and Enterprise Mobility (which also includes the National and Alamo brands) to confirm at the corporate level whether each company uses scanners for rental inspections. An Avis representative didn't answer that question specifically, but said that "the damage assessment process at Avis remains human-led. While certain technologies, including AI, may be used to support internal efficiencies, they do not replace the judgment or involvement of our employees. Delivering fair, transparent, and service-driven experiences for our customers remains our top priority." It's worth noting that [Avis previously tested an AI-based system]() developed by a company named [Ravin]() at London Heathrow Airport back in 2019. As for Enterprise, that company was more direct in its response, unequivocally denying use of the tech. "Enterprise Mobility is not using digital damage scanners at check-in, check-out, or in our damage review process for any of our car rental brands, which includes Enterprise Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental, and Alamo," the company told *The Drive* over email. ![A rental drives through Hertz's UVeye AI vehicle inspection scanner.]() *A rental drives through Hertz's UVeye AI vehicle inspection scanner. *UVeye** ## Sixt's Scanners Are Getting Their Timelines Mixed Up 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. You can see it in the images below. 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. "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." ![]() ![]() *The Drive* contacted Sixt about this case, seeking more context on how it happened. The company didn't provide any background, but stated, "We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience to the customer. This experience does not reflect our high service standards. In the rare event a discrepancy occurs, our team is committed to reviewing it thoroughly and resolving it promptly—as was done here in response to the customer’s feedback." Another Sixt customer named Ray wrote of an incident not terribly unlike Badi's, at Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C. After returning their rental on a particularly stormy day, Ray said they received an email from Sixt showing two small scratches: one on a wheel and another on a fender. "The email stated that I needed to provide my insurance information to them or pay $650," Ray told us. You can probably guess what happened next. "So after I calmed down and looked at the pictures again," Ray said, "I noticed that the car was completely dry." Then they spotted the date of the initial scan—not the final scan—on the supposedly incriminating photos. "It even said 'exit' on the picture," Ray added. The customer told Sixt that they weren't responsible for those marks, and a week later, Sixt closed the case. Transparency and accuracy are often touted as the rationale for these AI scanning systems by the companies that employ them. In an ideal world, these scanners are finding real, actionable damage and charging customers fair rates for it. Instead, rental car agencies seem to be using this tech to needle renters for minimal wear and tear that, in some cases, the renters didn't even cause—and only backing away when the errors are pointed out to them. That's the opposite of accuracy and efficiency. Mistakes and predatory inspection practices happened when humans were running this show, too, but accounts like these we've been hearing cast doubt that AI is actually helping change the status quo for the better. *If you do face an AI scanner during your next rental and have a story to tell—good or bad—reach out to us at tips@thedrive.com*[]() ## Author Adam is a Senior Editor at The Drive, concentrating on curating and developing the site's slate of daily journalism, from initial pitch to final copy edit. When he's not at his desk researching leads and working with writers, he's testing vehicles or reviewing racing games, new and old. He joined The Drive in 2023, following seven years of covering consumer technology and cars. A car lover and gamer since his earliest memories, Adam came to know the automotive world through video games. First it was Daytona USA, Sega Rally, and Ridge Racer; then came Need For Speed, which inspired an encyclopedic knowledge of '90s supercars, and, of course, Gran Turismo. If not for them, he'd assuredly be doing something else right now. Adam is based in the suburbs outside Philly, where there are ample roads for his hot hatch to stretch its legs. In his car, he's probably listening to indie rock, drum and bass, or Yankees baseball. ### Author social links [Bluesky]() [Instagram]() [LinkedIn]()