Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The current process is no less fair and Hertz is no less evil - but in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available. I don't think it's impartial: the implication here is that the same technology is not available to the renter, so Hertz can easily claim damage that was already present at checkout that an ordinary customer picture can't refute. That asymmetry seems bad to me.
That's weird, because when I rent a car, I take photos and videos and I make sure to have a attendant write down the damage on the rental paper before I drive away. Is basic ass covering weird?
Unless you carry a dent repair light in a darkened room, you're not matching their level of detail fwiw
If you put most people's cars under those lights you'd be shocked at how much damage you'd find.