Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Consumers are used to finding hidden fees attached to hotel bills, airline tickets and even monthly telephone and cable bills. However, a California woman says that a national van rental company also engaged in false advertising by including a mandatory fee without mentioning it in the rates.
Maria Arevalo alleges in the U-Haul extra fee class action lawsuit that she contacted a company facility several weeks ago and was told that she could rent a vehicle for $29.95 plus any mileage charge. However, the company “failed to advise [her] that a mandatory environmental fee would be added to the base rental fee of $29.95 as a condition of renting the vehicle, thus making the actual daily rate $30.95.”
The U-Haul class action lawsuit adds that this environmental fee ranges from $1 to $5 per day depending on the location, yet in spite of the advertising, “in preparing the paperwork for the rental, U-Haul added to the rental contract, as a separate line item added to the daily rate…. as a mandatory condition” the environmental fee.
This U-Haul class action lawsuit would include “all persons who rented a U-Haul vehicle in California and were charged a base rental rate as well as a separate environmental fee during the time period from March 4, 2008, through the time of trial in this action. U-Haul began charging the environmental fee at all its locations March 4,2008, at which time all U-Haul rental customers became subject to it.”
While the class action lawsuit revolves around the terms of the contracts that people enter into in order to use the rental vehicles, the actual charges revolve around the alleged false advertising. Arevalo claims that she and others were misled by the rates of $19.95 and $29.95 day rates with additional mileage costs, with the potential for an additional extra fee of up to 25 percent with the environmental fee left unmentioned.
The lead plaintiff is represented by class action lawyer Petter L. Recchia of the Law Office of Peter Recchia PC.
The U-Haul False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Maria Arevalo v. U-Haul International Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-01179, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
5 thoughts on‘Environmental Fee’ Spurs U-Haul False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit
Add me
Add me
DISH NETWORK –dish network satellite internet SAID IT IS 3X FASTER IT WOULDN’T EVEN WORK ON 1 COMPUTER IN MY HOUSE SALES REP TOLD ME IT WORK ON 3 TO 4 COMPUTERS AND GAMING THAT NEVER HAPPEN I HAD THEM FROM SEPT 2012, TO 2013 I CALLED FROM THE 30 DAY MARK TO GET OUT OF THE THERE CONTRACT SAID THEY WOULD CANCEL MY CONTRACT ON THIS NEVER HAPPEN I WANT A REFUND OF $825 FOR THE MONTHS I HAD AND TIME AWAY I I COULDN’T GET WORK DONE ON COMPUTER I OWN MY OWN BUSINESS, HAD TO PAY $250 TO GET OUT OF CONTRACT THIS COMPANY IS FALSE ADVERTISEMENT ON THIS PRODUCT. ALSO HAD THERE TV TOLD ME I COULD RECORD 6 PROGRAMS AT ONE TIME ON 6 DIFFERENT TV’S NOT THE CASE.
YOU CAN ONLY RECORD 3 PROGRAMS AT A TIME AND IF YOUR WATCHING LIVE TV YOU CAN ONLY RECORD 2 AND WATCH LIVE TV ON ONE CHANNEL THE OTHER 3 PROGRAMS ARE IN THERE PRIME TIME TV THAT IS SETUP BY DISH TO RECORD AT THERE TIMING AND THESE ARE PROGRAMS I DIDN’T EVEN WATCH. I HAD TO PAY TO GET OUT OF THIS ALSO $250 AND HAD A CABLE BILL 15 MONTHS OF $200 ON CABLE COULDN’T GET OUT OF CONTRACT UNLESS PAID THEY ARE FALSE ADVERTISMENT
If this is the case, there’s a “Start a Class Action” button on the side of this page and many other pages. There are likely others who are dissatisfied with Dish Network’s advertising. Replying to an off-topic post rarely gets the results you’re seeking; it may even be viewed as spam, slander, or harassment depending on the circumstances. Tip: try making the submission more intelligible, proper punctuation/grammer/word choice/capitalization, etc. This makes the post appear more credible, resulting in a greater probability of success.
As for the OP, my memory is a little fuzzy, but I thought I noticed these charges added to a trailer I rented in the state of Washington. Too bad this suit only covers California, but when a bureaucratic corporation faces legal changes in a heavily populated jurisdiction, these changes tend to spill over to other jurisdictions. This happened with New York city’s trans-fat law and a couple of states’ GMO labeling laws.
dish net work is a big joke they told me the same thing and before they left my house I try to get them to take it out and they would not and when I finally got the to they try to charge me a $200.dollar on rent movie they claim I rented .which the boxes was in my 7 year old room which ever thing was blocked.SO yes dish net work I would not have back in my home. And the sad thing is I was with them people for 13 years all I did was up crated my boxes ,and they ripped me off