Turo lawsuits fall into a handful of recurring categories: consumer class actions over undisclosed fees, disputes with airports over permits and taxes, negligence claims tied to renters who used Turo vehicles to commit crimes, challenges to the company’s arbitration and insurance practices, and questions about when the platform itself can be held responsible for what happens on the road. Some have settled quickly. Others have produced published appellate rulings, and a few remain active.
Class Actions Over Hidden Fees
The best-known consumer suit was Yang v. Turo Inc., filed in February 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Honan Yang, a 76-year-old Illinois resident, alleged that after he returned a rented 2015 Hyundai Sonata, Turo charged him $576.86 in damage fees plus $150 in combined “appraisal” and “processing” fees that were never disclosed upfront.1Top Class Actions. Turo Class Action Says Customers Charged Undisclosed Fees The complaint sought to represent anyone nationwide who received notice of such fees more than 24 hours after returning a vehicle and argued the charges violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Turo and Yang filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on April 30, 2020. Settlement terms were not disclosed.2ClassAction.org. Class Action: Peer-to-Peer Car Rental Company Turo Charges Deceptive Appraisal Processing Fees
A similar case in Canada produced a public resolution. In Abicidan v. Turo Inc. (No. 500-06-001026-190), the plaintiff alleged Turo displayed one price at the start of the booking process but charged more once additional fees were layered on, in violation of Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act and the federal Competition Act.3LPC Avocat. Turo Trip Fees Class Action The Quebec Superior Court approved a settlement on April 12, 2022 valued at roughly $760,688 CAD. Eligible class members received a $16.50 CAD credit toward a future booking, and Turo agreed to change its Quebec booking display so the first price shown is the all-in price, excluding only taxes and optional add-ons. Turo did not admit liability.4Registre des actions collectives (Quebec). Abicidan v. Turo Inc. Settlement Agreement
Allegations That Turo Refuses to Arbitrate
Turo’s terms of service require binding arbitration and include a class action waiver.5Turo. Terms of Service A 2024 class action alleges the company does not follow its own process. In Trifan v. Turo Inc. (No. 1:24-cv-07686), filed August 26, 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois, Turo host Rodica Trifan alleged that after a collision damaged her vehicle in October 2022, she spent more than a year trying to get Turo to address her claim. When she filed a formal arbitration demand in November 2023, the complaint says Turo never paid the $375 business filing fee required under the American Arbitration Association’s rules, and the AAA closed her case in March 2024.6ClassAction.org. Turo Refuses to Engage in Arbitration to Resolve Customer Disputes, Class Action Lawsuit Alleges
The lawsuit alleges breach of contract along with violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. It seeks to represent anyone in the United States whose Turo arbitration failed to proceed because the company did not pay its required filing fee, and asks for an order compelling Turo to pay arbitration fees plus damages, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.7ClassAction.org. Trifan v. Turo Inc., Complaint The case remains pending.
Airport Fights and California’s AB 893
Some of the largest Turo litigation has come from airports treating the platform as a rental car company avoiding permits and fees.
San Francisco International Airport
In January 2018, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera sued Turo, alleging the company operated at SFO without a required permit and bypassed rules requiring rental car transactions to occur at the airport’s consolidated rental car center. Standard rental companies pay an $18-per-rental AirTrain fee plus 10 percent of receipts. Turo had relinquished its SFO permit in August 2017 after paying roughly $50,000 annually in prior years.8San Francisco Chronicle. SF Sues Turo for Not Having Airport Permits
Turo cross-complained, seeking a declaration that it is not a “rental car company” under California law. A trial court sided with the city, but on June 28, 2022, the California Court of Appeal reversed in Turo Inc. v. Superior Court (80 Cal.App.5th 517). The appellate court held that a “rental car company” under the relevant California statutes is one that owns or controls the vehicles it rents. Because Turo connects vehicle owners with renters and does not itself own or control any cars, it did not meet that definition.9Findlaw. Turo Inc. v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco
AB 893
The traditional rental industry answered through the legislature. Assembly Bill 893, sponsored by Enterprise, was signed on October 8, 2023 and took effect July 1, 2024.10Digital Democracy (CalMatters). AB 893 The law requires “personal vehicle sharing programs” like Turo to obtain airport permits, collect customer facility charges that fund consolidated rental car facilities, and pay tourism assessments under the California Tourism Marketing Act for any rental transaction originating at an airport.11ABC7 News. New California Laws in Effect July 1 AB 893 effectively overrode the 2022 appellate ruling for airport-regulation purposes.
DFW International Airport
A parallel dispute is running in Texas. In October 2021, DFW Airport sued Turo and six individual hosts in Tarrant County, seeking a permanent injunction against all Turo activity on airport property. The airport argued that a bond covenant requires all rental car deliveries to happen at the consolidated rental car facility and that Turo was evading airport fees and state and local rental car taxes.12Fort Worth Report. DFW Airport Tries to Put the Brakes on Car Sharing Companies Turo countered that it doesn’t operate rental counters, maintain on-site fleets, or use airport infrastructure the way traditional agencies do, and pointed to permitting deals at more than 100 other airports, including Dallas Love Field.13CBS News Texas. Growing Transportation Option Parked in Long Legal Battle with DFW Airport The case remained in active litigation as of late 2023, with a possible jury trial discussed for 2024.14NBC DFW. Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing Service Battles to Expand at North Texas Airport
The Bourbon Street and Las Vegas Attacks
On January 1, 2025, two Turo-rented vehicles were used in separate attacks. In New Orleans, 42-year-old Shamsud-Din Jabbar drove a Turo-rented Ford pickup into a crowd on Bourbon Street, killing at least 14 people before he was killed by police. In Las Vegas, 37-year-old Matthew Livelsberger parked a Turo-rented Tesla Cybertruck packed with fuel canisters and fireworks outside the Trump International Hotel, where it exploded and injured seven bystanders. Livelsberger was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.15Los Angeles Times. Turo Defends Security Standards After New Years Attacks
Less than a month later, the law firms Romanucci & Blandin and Maples & Connick filed suit on behalf of 35 survivors and families in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. The defendants named were the City of New Orleans, the construction firms Mott MacDonald LLC and Hard Rock Construction LLC, and the auto insurance carrier for the rental vehicle. The complaint alleged the attack was preventable, citing failures to install protective barriers and deviations from the city’s public safety plan for New Year’s Eve.16News-Press. Fort Myers Victims Lawsuit Over New Orleans Bourbon Street Truck Attack Advances As of late 2025, the consolidated cases had survived several motions to dismiss and entered discovery.17Romanucci & Blandin. One Year Anniversary Deadly Bourbon Street Attack Reporting from The American Prospect indicated that the same firms are also pursuing claims against Turo and Travelers Insurance in connection with the incident.18The American Prospect. Turo Car Sharing Crime Rental Insurance
Turo said after the attacks that neither renter had a criminal background that would have flagged them as a security threat and said the company employs “world-class” trust and safety protocols, including hiring former law enforcement professionals.15Los Angeles Times. Turo Defends Security Standards After New Years Attacks
Negligent Entrustment and the Limits of Platform Liability
A recurring question is whether Turo can be held responsible when a renter causes a crash. In Osegueda v. Turo and the related Basurto v. Turo, plaintiffs sued Turo and a vehicle owner after a 2019 crash, alleging negligent entrustment. They argued Turo should have barred the renter based on social media posts from years earlier. The court granted summary judgment for the vehicle owner and summary adjudication for Turo on the negligent entrustment claims, finding no evidence the renter was unfit to drive at the time of the reservation. The court held Turo liable only in its capacity as the statutory owner of the vehicle, with damages capped at $15,000 per plaintiff.19Yoka & Smith. Osegueda v. Turo The ruling shows how the statutory “owner” designation limits Turo’s exposure while shielding it from broader negligence theories, at least in that jurisdiction.
Insurance, Arbitration, and a Fentanyl Claim
A federal suit in Texas takes aim at Turo’s protection-plan ecosystem. In Lawal v. Turo Inc. (No. 4:25-cv-00810, Eastern District of Texas), plaintiff Azeez Lawal seeks to vacate an arbitration award and alleges systemic insurance fraud, RICO violations, and arbitral misconduct. The suit names Turo, Travelers Insurance, and FairClaims Inc., the third-party arbitration provider Turo uses for damage disputes, and claims the companies operate as an enterprise selling “illusory protection plans” and manipulating the arbitration process. Lawal is representing himself and has been granted permission to proceed without paying court fees. As of March 2026, Travelers had filed a motion to strike joinder and the petition to vacate remained pending with no substantive ruling yet issued.20CourtListener. Lawal v. Turo Inc., Docket
A separate suit filed by guest Krisztian Riez alleges he found significant fentanyl residue in a Turo rental. Riez sued in San Francisco Superior Court, seeking $1.5 million in damages for emotional distress and loss of earning capacity, plus changes to Turo’s background-check and inspection protocols. The case was moved to federal court in August 2025. Turo has denied the allegations.21SF Standard. Turo Car Rental Fentanyl Peer-to-Peer Vehicle Sharing
New York and the Insurance Rollback
New York has been a particular flashpoint. The state’s Department of Financial Services forced the company, then called RelayRide, to suspend operations in 2013 after finding it misrepresented how car-sharing affected personal insurance policies. Turo returned to New York in 2021 under a new state law that required peer-to-peer platforms to carry $1.25 million in supplemental liability insurance per vehicle.22City & State NY. Turo Car Share App Pushes Bill to Reduce Insurance Requirements In December 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation reducing that threshold to $75,000 per individual and $150,000 for two or more persons. Turo spent $435,000 lobbying New York lawmakers on the issue in 2025.18The American Prospect. Turo Car Sharing Crime Rental Insurance Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal, among others, said the reduced thresholds prioritize a “billion-dollar tech company” over consumer safety. A further bill that would lower the requirement to as little as $25,000 had advanced out of the Assembly Insurance Committee but had not moved in the state Senate as of early 2025. The lower coverage floor matters for any future crash claim brought against a New York Turo renter, because it caps what victims can recover before turning to the driver personally.