Rental passenger vehicles: electronic surveillance technology: renter liability for loss due to theft.

Calderon’s measure ties rental-car liability to a revised framework for theft losses and expands geofence-enabled detection to monitor vehicle movement in clearly defined circumstances. It authorizes the use of geofence technology to detect movement when the vehicle is moved outside the country without authorized travel or into an impound or tow yard, and it adds a specific burden‑of‑proof dynamic to the existing theft liability framework by tying a presumption of no liability to the return of the ignition key and a police report filed within 24 hours, while allowing a rental company to rebut that presumption by showing that an authorized driver participated in the theft.

Key mechanisms center on activation rules, notice, and recordkeeping. Surveillance may be activated after a missed return of the vehicle more than 24 hours after the contracted return date or extension, with 24 hours’ prior notice to the renter. The same broad framework applies if a theft is identified, with a requirement that a police report be filed within 24 hours and cooperation with law enforcement. In addition, the measure provides that geofence surveillance can be used to detect movement into an impound or tow yard, with the renter notified of the detection and the vehicle deemed abandoned if it remains within the yard’s perimeter for 24 hours after notification. When active, the rental company must maintain a record detailing the rental agreement, return date, activation time, and related communications, kept for at least 12 months and made available to the renter on request, including explanatory codes to read the record. The notice and acknowledgement requirements are explicit: renters receive advisement that surveillance may be activated for nonreturn, and they must acknowledge (by initials) at the time of rental execution; members enrolled in the company’s program are exempt from the initial advisement but must receive it upon enrollment.

The proposal also tightens data‑use rules and clarifies permissible surveillance purposes. Information obtained via electronic surveillance may be used only for enumerated purposes, with narrow exceptions allowing GPS navigation, remote locking/unlocking, or roadside assistance so long as the renter’s use data is not otherwise accessed for those purposes. Data gathered solely to determine departure and return times, total mileage, and fuel level may be used only for that purpose. Importantly, the measure prohibits using surveillance data to track a renter for fines or surcharges. In parallel, it preserves a limited set of legitimate uses—such as responding to law enforcement requests, processing AMBER Alerts, and other operational needs—within the scope of the statute. The power to investigate theft remains, but the burden‑shifting provision gives a rental company a pathway to challenge the presumption of no liability when appropriate evidence suggests driver involvement.

Together, these provisions place a structured framework around renter privacy and surveillance in rental vehicles while expanding the tools available to locate or recover missing or stolen cars. They introduce explicit timelines for activation, notification, and recordkeeping, and they align surveillance practices with narrowly defined purposes and privacy safeguards. The measure does not include explicit funding or penalties within the text, leaving enforcement and compliance costs to be addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms and contractual remedies. In context, the policy questions revolve around balancing theft deterrence and vehicle recovery with renter privacy, the clarity of definitions for technologies like geofence, and the practical implications for rental companies, renters, and law enforcement coordinations.