[shkkmo]

I doubt USA Today made that quote up, since it would open them to significant defamation liability. While I can't find an article with that exact quote, this article is from the right time period and does paraphrase a very similar sentiment as coming from Hertz: https://www.inquirer.com/business/retail/hertz-stolen-car-gr...

> Hertz has no mechanism to withdraw a criminal referral because, the company spokesperson said, it has to maintain a relationship of “integrity and responsibility” with law enforcement

[shkkmo]

Looks like there was an edit between August 4th and August 6th 2020 on the inquirer article:

Aug 4th: https://web.archive.org/web/20200804074215/https://www.inqui...

Aug 6th: https://web.archive.org/web/20200806004611/https://www.inqui...

The original version of the article did have the fuller quote:

> Hertz has no mechanism to withdraw a criminal referral because, the company spokesperson said, it has to maintain a relationship of “integrity and responsibility” with law enforcement.

> “In the rare instances this happens, if you report a crime, and you later say it didn’t happen, then law enforcement tends not to believe you if you retract it or say you were mistaken,” the spokesperson said. “Hertz’s continued good relationship with law enforcement is important.”

[SpelingBeeChamp]

Interesting. I think that someone at Hertz may have made the original statement without authorization. The original article includes the text:

>"A Hertz spokesperson, who asked not to be identified, said that payments or even the eventual recovery of the car did not wipe away what it views as the original theft."

That is bizarre. I am a reporter; I cover news. The spokespeople of major corporations don't request anonymity. Anonymity is reserved for sensitive sources. It's literally the job of a spokesperson to speak on behalf of a company. They don't seek anonymity.

The second version of the article doesn't include the statement that Hertz's spokesperson requested anonymity. Which makes me think that the original source was either not a spokesperson at all, or that they might have been speaking without authorization.

The comment is still weird, but in the context of that article, Hertz doesn't come across that poorly, IMO. If you rent a car, and the rental company asks that it be returned after your rental period is over, going to the point of calling you multiple times, sending you letters, sending you a letter via Certified Mail, and finally trying to repo the car — all before reporting the car as stolen... well... that's kind of on you when the car is subsequently reported as stolen. Even if you kept paying for it. No? People don't have the right to unilaterally extend their rental period. According to Hertz, in 100% of cases, they did all of the above prior to reporting vehicles as stolen.

[jakelazaroff]

They’re lying:

> Saleema Lovelace, who was arrested at gunpoint two days before the date on which she had agreed to return her rental car to Hertz.

> Connie Totman, who rented a car from Hertz in South Carolina and returned the car in Georgia. Hertz subsequently overcharged Ms. Totman in error and falsely reported the vehicle as stolen to South Carolina police.

In the latter case they reported the car as stolen after it had already been returned! The mind boggles.

[HarryHirsch]

In the latter case they reported the car as stolen after it had already been returned!

Don't worry, that happens. Hertz will not hesitate to call you, saying that the credit card used for the rental has been maxed out, and could you supply a different credit card.

Always keep your receipts.

[jakelazaroff]

Okay, but that's not at all the same thing as stealing a car.