Over the past several years, new car rental business models – including so-called “peer-to-peer” or P2P car rentals companies – have entered the car rental market. ACRA’s position is that all companies renting vehicles to the public for profit (regardless of the business model or platform) must comply with all state and federal laws – insurance, liability, recalls, consumer protection, taxes, and fees for operating at airports.

Recently, a number of airport authorities and city and county government agencies have taken formal and informal steps – from litigation to cease-and-desist orders — to require P2P car rental companies to comply with state and local tax laws and policies for companies that rent cars at airports. Below is a timeline of those actions with links to the relevant documents. If you have questions or comments on this timeline or ACRA’s position on the P2P car rental model, please contact Sharon Faulkner at sfaulkner@acraorg.com.




  • Los Angeles International Airport Rules and Regulations
    January 2017
    “Rental Car Company” – Any business that, directly or indirectly, provides, procures and/or brokers rental vehicles as part of its business and/or conducts, facilitates, and/or manages vehicle rental activities as part of its business. This includes, but is not limited to, traditional rental car businesses, brokers for car rental businesses, rental car delivery companies, peer-to-peer car rental businesses and car sharing businesses.”

  • Tampa International Airport
    April 2017
    “All commercial vehicle operations by Turo or Turo representatives/drivers must comply with the Authority’s requirements.”

  • Cleveland Hopkins International Airport
    April 2017
    “…both Turo and Turo’s drivers are profiting off activities located at the Airport without a permit or the Airport’s approval.”

  • Los Angeles International Airport
    April 2017
    “Regardless of what you characterize your business, no business is allowed to operate at LAX without the necessary license, lease, contract, and/or permit…”

  • Salt Lake City International Airport
    May 2017
    “…Such business practice is unfair and illegal.”

  • San Jose International Airport
    May 2017
    “…not only does Turo put those who receive permits at a competitive disadvantage, but it also deprives the Airport of fees and charges.”

  • Sacramento International Airport
    June 2017
    “Turo is currently conducting unauthorized off-airport rental car operations at Sacramento International Airport (SMF).”

  • Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
    July 2017
    “To date, your company has not complied with the regulatory framework…”

  • Las Vegas – McCarran International Airport
    July 2017
    “…Turo has been conducting commercial operations at McCarran International Airport without the required permits, business licenses, or insurances.”

  • City of San Francisco
    September 2017
    “Because Turo is acting as a rental car company at SFO, marketing itself as a rental car company at SFO, and directly competing with rental car companies at SFO, it cannot continue such operations without a valid off-airport rental car permit.”

  • San Francisco International Airport
    August 2017
    “In the absence of an operating permit, your continued operation of any services at SFO is an unlawful trespass.



  • Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority
    February 2019
    “Any commercial operator who wishes to do business at the airport must have a valid MNAA issued permit…”

  • Richmond International Airport
    March 2019
    “…Turo improperly advertises and offers to provide car rental services at the Airport…”

  • Hillsborough County Aviation Authority (Tampa, FL) legal filing
    March 2019
    “While Turo does not own its Co-Defendants’ vehicles that Turo rents to the public, Turo nonetheless offers a full-service rental car experience comparable to that offered by “traditional” rental car companies.”

  • City of San Antonio
    April 2019
    “…Turo is doing much more than merely providing a platform for an online marketplace.”

  • City of Oklahoma City
    May 2019
    “…allowing Turo’s platform and web application to indicate these services are available at OKC is false and deceptive advertising. This may cause confusion and mislead the public since neither Turo, nor its platform users are authorized to engage in any rental car or commercial operations on the airport.”

  • Massachusetts Port Authority legal filing
    June 2019
    “In addition to the revenues lost as a result of this refusal, Turo’s expanding operations at Logan cause congestion on Logan’s roadways and curbs, where Turo arranges for pickup and delivery of vehicles, cause safety risks from that increased congestion, and result in an unfair competitive advantage…”

  • City and County of San Francisco legal filing
    November 2019
    “…Turo describes itself differently to different audiences to suit its agenda at that moment”
    “Turo presents a false narrative that there is a grand national conspiracy between behemoth rental car companies and airports against the fragile startup and disruptor Turo.”

  • City and County of San Francisco legal filing
    December 2019
    “If SFO were to allow Turo to operate at SFO at substantially lower charges than those paid by permitted off-airport and on-airport rental car companies, Turo would gain an unfair economic advantage.”