Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments	Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments Legal Proceedings Self-Insured Liabilities The Company is currently a defendant in numerous actions and has received numerous claims on which actions have not yet commenced for self-insured liabilities arising from the operation of motor vehicles rented from the Company. The obligation for self-insured liabilities on self-insured U.S. and international vehicles, as stated in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets, represents an estimate for both reported accident claims not yet paid and claims incurred but not yet reported. The related liabilities are recorded on an undiscounted basis and are based on actuarially determined estimates using historical claims experience. These estimates include judgment about severity of claims, frequency and volume of claims. As of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company's liability recorded for self-insured liabilities was $643 million and $648 million, of which $501 million and $508 million relates to liabilities incurred by the Company's Americas RAC operations, respectively. The Company believes that its analysis is based on the most relevant information available, combined with reasonable assumptions. The liability is subject to significant uncertainties. The adequacy of the liability is monitored quarterly based on evolving accident claim history. If the Company's estimates change or if actual results differ from these assumptions, the amount of the recorded liability is adjusted to reflect these results. Loss Contingencies From time to time, the Company is a party to various legal proceedings, typically involving operational issues common to the vehicle rental business. The Company has summarized below the material legal proceedings to which the Company was a party during the three months ended June 30, 2026 or the period after June 30, 2026, but before the filing of this Quarterly Report. Make-Whole and Post-Petition Interest Claims – On July 1, 2021, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"), in its capacity as indenture trustee of (1) 6.250% Unsecured Notes due 2022 (the "2022 Notes"), (2) 5.500% Unsecured Notes due 2024 (the "2024 Notes"), (3) 7.125% Unsecured Notes due 2026 (the "2026 Notes") and (4) 6.000% Unsecured Notes due 2028 (the "2028 Notes") issued by The Hertz Corporation (collectively, the “Unsecured Notes”), filed a complaint against The Hertz Corporation and multiple direct and indirect subsidiaries thereof (collectively referred to in this paragraph summary as “defendants”). The filing of the complaint initiated the adversary proceeding captioned Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The Hertz Corp., et al. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Bankruptcy Court"), Adv. Pro. No. 21-50995 (MFW). The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the holders of the Unsecured Notes are entitled to payment of certain redemption premiums and post-petition interest that the holders assert total approximately $272 million or, in the alternative, are entitled to payment of post-petition interest at a contractual rate that they assert totals approximately $125 million. The complaint also asserts the right to pre-judgment interest from July 1, 2021 to the date of any judgment. On December 22, 2021, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court dismissed Wells Fargo’s claims with respect to (i) the redemption premium allegedly owed on the 2022 Notes and the 2024 Notes and (ii) post-petition interest at the contract rate. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The Hertz Corp., et al., 637 B.R. 781 (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 22, 2021). On November 9, 2022, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled that the make-whole premium is the same as unmatured interest and is disallowed under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, granting summary judgment in the defendants’ favor. The Delaware Bankruptcy Court certified the matter directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) and, on January 25, 2023, the Third Circuit accepted Wells Fargo’s appeal. The Third Circuit held an oral argument for this appeal on October 25, 2023, and on September 10, 2024, the Third Circuit issued its opinion in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The Hertz Corp., et al., 117 F.4th 109 (3d Cir. 2024). In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the Third Circuit held that the "absolute priority rule" required Hertz to pay the make-whole premium on the 2026 Notes and on the 2028 Notes, and post-petition interest at the contract rate rather than the federal judgment rate on all Unsecured Notes, even though those amounts were disallowed under the Bankruptcy Code. On October 15, 2024, the Company filed a petition with the Third Circuit for a rehearing en banc, which the Third Circuit denied on November 6, 2024. The Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States ("U.S. Supreme Court") on April 4, 2025. On June 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a docket entry calling for the views of the Solicitor General of the United States ("Solicitor General") on whether it should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. Subsequently, the Solicitor General filed its brief of the United States recommending that the U.S. Supreme Court deny the Company's petition for writ of certiorari. On January 12, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for writ of certiorari and remanded the case back to the Delaware Bankruptcy Court for entry of final judgment. On January 27, 2026, Hertz paid Wells Fargo, as indenture trustee, the previously reserved amount of $346 million, including the interest to date, which is the amount that was not disputed by the parties. The Delaware Bankruptcy Court subsequently denied Wells Fargo's request for additional pre-judgment interest, but awarded Wells Fargo a nominal amount as a correction to the principal owed. Share Repurchase Program Litigation – On May 11, 2023, Angelo Cascia, a purported stockholder of Hertz Global, filed a putative class and derivative lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Chancery Court") against certain current and former directors of Hertz Global, Knighthead Capital Management, LLC ("Knighthead"), Certares Opportunities LLC ("Certares") and CK Amarillo. The claims in the complaint relate to the Company’s share repurchase programs approved in November 2021 and June 2022. Among other allegations, the plaintiff claims Board members breached their fiduciary duties in approving these share repurchase programs and that Knighthead, Certares, and CK Amarillo were unjustly enriched because they gained a majority stake in Hertz Global as a result of share repurchases. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on July 24, 2023. On March 11, 2024, the Delaware Chancery Court held a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 20, 2024, the Delaware Chancery Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The Delaware Chancery Court dismissed the claims against directors Feikin, Fields, Intrieri and Vougessis with prejudice, dismissed the claims related to the 2021 buyback without prejudice and allowed the remaining claims to proceed. On August 26, 2024, the Board formed a Special Litigation Committee (the "SLC"), made up of two independent directors, to evaluate and take any necessary actions related to the remaining claims. On October 21, 2024, the Delaware Chancery Court granted a motion to stay the litigation, including all discovery, until March 21, 2025. On March 26, 2025, the Delaware Chancery Court extended the stay for an additional 30 days. On April 25, 2025, the SLC filed its report under seal with the Delaware Chancery Court. On May 9, 2025, the SLC filed an unopposed motion to terminate the derivative claims in the litigation. In response, the plaintiff informed the Delaware Chancery Court that he would not oppose the SLC’s motion to terminate the derivative claims, declared his intention to continue to prosecute the direct claims only and reserved his right to seek an award of fees based on the alleged benefit conferred to the Company. The Court scheduled a hearing on the SLC's unopposed motion to terminate the derivative claims for November 10, 2025. The parties then settled the direct and derivative claims, subject to approval of the Delaware Chancery Court. On July 23, 2026, the Delaware Chancery Court approved the settlement agreement, including the plaintiff’s approximate $3 million fee petition. Doller Securities Class Action Complaint – On May 31, 2024, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Florida Middle District Court"), captioned Edward M. Doller v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. et al. (No. 2:24-CV-00513). On September 30, 2024, an amended complaint was filed, following the Florida Middle District Court's appointment of a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel. The amended complaint asserts claims against Hertz Global, former Company CEO, Stephen M. Scherr ("Defendant Scherr"), and former Company Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), Alexandra Brooks, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including concerning statements regarding demand for EVs. Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a putative class, consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hertz Global's securities between January 6, 2023 and April 24, 2024. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, together with interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. Hertz Global filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 30, 2024. On December 19, 2024, the Florida Middle District Court stayed all proceedings, pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. On October 16, 2025, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in part all claims except those based on two statements by Defendant Scherr in January and April of 2023. The Court directed the clerk to lift the stay. The parties settled in principle during a mediation on March 12, 2026, subject to approval of the Court. Data Breach Claims – On April 15, 2025, Zain Jiwani filed a class action complaint against Cleo Communications U.S., LLC (“Cleo”) and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division (Rockford, IL) (the "Illinois Northern District, Western Division Court"). Plaintiff alleges that Cleo, a file-transfer vendor for the Company, experienced a data breach event that may have impacted the personal information of certain individuals during the secure file transfer process from the Company’s systems to third-party systems and that Company data may have been acquired by an unauthorized third party that exploited zero-day vulnerabilities within Cleo’s platform in October and December of 2024. Plaintiff alleges that the Company was negligent in failing to secure the data, breached implied contracts and was unjustly enriched. Ten similar class action complaints were filed against the Company shortly thereafter and eventually transferred to the same court, the Illinois Northern District, Western Division Court. The class actions generally seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The defendants' responses to the complaints were stayed until the conclusion of a mediation between the plaintiffs and Cleo on June 30, 2026. The plaintiffs and Cleo conditionally settled all claims against all defendants at the mediation. At this stage of the litigation, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Schweitzer Securities Class Action Complaint – On July 24, 2026, Cameron Schweitzer, a stockholder of Hertz Global, filed a class action against Hertz Global and individual defendants Company CEO Gil West and Company CFO Scott Haralson in the Florida Middle District Court. The plaintiff purports to represent a class of all persons who purchased Hertz Global securities between May 7, 2026, and June 23, 2026, seeking to recover damages caused by the defendants’ alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff generally alleges that the defendants misrepresented in May 2026 that the Company had sufficient liquidity to fund future operating activities and that the softness in the used car market was transitory, but that the stock price declined more than 40% in June 2026 when the Company announced a capital raise using the Exchangeable First Lien Notes Due 2030 and announced that unexpected softness in the used car market caused losses on the sales of vehicles. At this early stage of the litigation, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this action will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. The Company has established reserves for matters where the Company believes that losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Other than the aggregate reserve established for claims for self-insured liabilities and the bankruptcy-related litigation, none of those reserves are material. For matters where the Company has not established a reserve, the ultimate outcome or resolution cannot be predicted at this time, or the amount of ultimate loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. These matters are subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of the individual litigated matters is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that certain of the actions, claims, inquiries or proceedings could be decided unfavorably to the Company or any of its subsidiaries involved. Accordingly, it is possible that an adverse outcome from such a proceeding could exceed the amount accrued in an amount that could be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. Indemnification Obligations In the ordinary course of business, the Company has executed contracts involving indemnification obligations customary in the relevant industry and indemnifications specific to a transaction, such as the sale of a business. These indemnification obligations might include claims relating to the following: environmental matters; intellectual property rights; governmental regulations and employment-related matters; customer, supplier and other commercial contractual relationships and financial matters. Specifically, the Company has indemnified various parties for the costs associated with remediating numerous hazardous substance storage, recycling or disposal sites in many states and, in some instances, for natural resource damages. The amount of any such expenses or related natural resource damages for which the Company may be held responsible could be substantial. In addition, Hertz entered into customary indemnification agreements with Hertz Holdings and certain of the Company's stockholders and their affiliates pursuant to which Hertz Holdings and Hertz will indemnify those entities and their respective affiliates, directors, officers, partners, members, employees, agents, representatives and controlling persons, against certain liabilities arising out of performance of a consulting agreement with Hertz Holdings and each of such entities and certain other claims and liabilities, including liabilities arising out of financing arrangements or securities offerings. The Company has entered into customary indemnification agreements with each of its directors and certain of its officers. Performance under these indemnification obligations would generally be triggered by a breach of terms of the contract or by a third-party claim. In connection with the separation of the car rental business in 2016, the Company executed an agreement with Herc Holdings Inc. that contains mutual indemnification clauses and a customary indemnification provision with respect to liability arising out of, or resulting from, assumed legal matters. The Company regularly evaluates the probability of having to incur costs associated with these indemnification obligations and has accrued for expected losses that are probable and estimable.

The Company is currently a defendant in numerous actions and has received numerous claims on which actions have not yet commenced for self-insured liabilities arising from the operation of motor vehicles rented from the Company. The obligation for self-insured liabilities on self-insured U.S. and international vehicles, as stated in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets, represents an estimate for both reported accident claims not yet paid and claims incurred but not yet reported. The related liabilities are recorded on an undiscounted basis and are based on actuarially determined estimates using historical claims experience. These estimates include judgment about severity of claims, frequency and volume of claims. As of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company's liability recorded for self-insured liabilities was $643 million and $648 million, of which $501 million and $508 million relates to liabilities incurred by the Company's Americas RAC operations, respectively. The Company believes that its analysis is based on the most relevant information available, combined

Make-Whole and Post-Petition Interest Claims – On July 1, 2021, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"), in its capacity as indenture trustee of (1) 6.250% Unsecured Notes due 2022 (the "2022 Notes"), (2) 5.500% Unsecured Notes due 2024 (the "2024 Notes"), (3) 7.125% Unsecured Notes due 2026 (the "2026 Notes") and (4) 6.000% Unsecured Notes due 2028 (the "2028 Notes") issued by The Hertz Corporation (collectively, the “Unsecured Notes”), filed a complaint against The Hertz Corporation and multiple direct and indirect subsidiaries thereof (collectively referred to in this paragraph summary as “defendants”). The filing of the complaint initiated the adversary proceeding captioned Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The Hertz Corp., et al. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Bankruptcy Court"), Adv. Pro. No. 21-50995 (MFW). The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the holders of the Unsecured Notes are entitled to payment of certain redemption premiums and post-petition interest that the holders assert total approximately $272 million or, in the alternative, are entitled to payment of post-petition interest at a contractual rate that they assert totals approximately $125 million. The complaint also asserts the right to pre-judgment interest from July 1, 2021 to the date of any judgment. On December 22, 2021, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court dismissed Wells Fargo’s claims with respect to (i) the redemption premium allegedly owed on the 2022 Notes and the 2024 Notes and (ii) post-petition interest at the contract rate. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The Hertz Corp., et al., 637 B.R. 781 (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 22, 2021). On November 9, 2022, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled that the make-whole premium is the same as unmatured interest and is disallowed under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, granting summary judgment in the defendants’ favor. The Delaware Bankruptcy Court certified the matter directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) and, on January 25, 2023, the Third Circuit accepted Wells Fargo’s appeal. The Third Circuit held an oral argument for this appeal on October 25, 2023, and on September 10, 2024, the Third Circuit issued its opinion in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The Hertz Corp., et al., 117 F.4th 109 (3d Cir. 2024). In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the Third Circuit held that the "absolute priority rule" required Hertz to pay the make-whole premium on the 2026 Notes and on the 2028 Notes, and post-petition interest at the contract rate rather than the federal judgment rate on all Unsecured Notes, even though those amounts were disallowed under the Bankruptcy Code. On October 15, 2024, the Company filed a petition with the Third Circuit for a rehearing en banc, which the Third Circuit denied on November 6, 2024. The Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States ("U.S. Supreme Court") on April 4, 2025. On June 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a docket entry calling for the views of the Solicitor General of the United States ("Solicitor General") on whether it should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. Subsequently, the Solicitor General filed its brief of the United States recommending that the U.S. Supreme Court deny the Company's petition for writ of certiorari. On January 12, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for writ of certiorari and remanded the case back to the Delaware Bankruptcy Court for entry of final judgment. On January 27, 2026, Hertz paid Wells Fargo, as indenture trustee, the previously reserved amount of $346 million, including the interest to date, which is the amount that was not disputed by the parties. The Delaware Bankruptcy Court subsequently denied Wells Fargo's request for additional pre-judgment interest, but awarded Wells Fargo a nominal amount as a correction to the principal owed.

as a result of share repurchases. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on July 24, 2023. On March 11, 2024, the Delaware Chancery Court held a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 20, 2024, the Delaware Chancery Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The Delaware Chancery Court dismissed the claims against directors Feikin, Fields, Intrieri and Vougessis with prejudice, dismissed the claims related to the 2021 buyback without prejudice and allowed the remaining claims to proceed. On August 26, 2024, the Board formed a Special Litigation Committee (the "SLC"), made up of two independent directors, to evaluate and take any necessary actions related to the remaining claims. On October 21, 2024, the Delaware Chancery Court granted a motion to stay the litigation, including all discovery, until March 21, 2025. On March 26, 2025, the Delaware Chancery Court extended the stay for an additional 30 days. On April 25, 2025, the SLC filed its report under seal with the Delaware Chancery Court. On May 9, 2025, the SLC filed an unopposed motion to terminate the derivative claims in the litigation. In response, the plaintiff informed the Delaware Chancery Court that he would not oppose the SLC’s motion to terminate the derivative claims, declared his intention to continue to prosecute the direct claims only and reserved his right to seek an award of fees based on the alleged benefit conferred to the Company. The Court scheduled a hearing on the SLC's unopposed motion to terminate the derivative claims for November 10, 2025. The parties then settled the direct and derivative claims, subject to approval of the Delaware Chancery Court. On July 23, 2026, the Delaware Chancery Court approved the settlement agreement, including the plaintiff’s approximate $3 million fee petition.

Doller Securities Class Action Complaint – On May 31, 2024, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Florida Middle District Court"), captioned Edward M. Doller v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. et al. (No. 2:24-CV-00513). On September 30, 2024, an amended complaint was filed, following the Florida Middle District Court's appointment of a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel. The amended complaint asserts claims against Hertz Global, former Company CEO, Stephen M. Scherr ("Defendant Scherr"), and former Company Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), Alexandra Brooks, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including concerning statements regarding demand for EVs. Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a putative class, consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hertz Global's securities between January 6, 2023 and April 24, 2024. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, together with interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. Hertz Global filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 30, 2024. On December 19, 2024, the Florida Middle District Court stayed all proceedings, pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. On October 16, 2025, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in part all claims except those based on two statements by Defendant Scherr in January and April of 2023. The Court directed the clerk to lift the stay. The parties settled in principle during a mediation on March 12, 2026, subject to approval of the Court.

Data Breach Claims – On April 15, 2025, Zain Jiwani filed a class action complaint against Cleo Communications U.S., LLC (“Cleo”) and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division (Rockford, IL) (the "Illinois Northern District, Western Division Court"). Plaintiff alleges that Cleo, a file-transfer vendor for the Company, experienced a data breach event that may have impacted the personal information of certain individuals during the secure file transfer process from the Company’s systems to third-party systems and that Company data may have been acquired by an unauthorized third party that exploited zero-day vulnerabilities within Cleo’s platform in October and December of 2024. Plaintiff alleges that the Company was negligent in failing to secure the data, breached implied contracts and was unjustly enriched. Ten similar class action complaints were filed against the Company shortly thereafter and eventually transferred to the same court, the Illinois Northern District, Western Division Court. The class actions generally seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The defendants' responses to the complaints were stayed until the conclusion of a mediation between the plaintiffs and Cleo on June 30, 2026. The plaintiffs and Cleo conditionally settled all claims against all defendants at the mediation. At this stage of the litigation, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

The Company has established reserves for matters where the Company believes that losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Other than the aggregate reserve established for claims for self-insured liabilities and the bankruptcy-related litigation, none of those reserves are material. For matters where the Company has not established a reserve, the ultimate outcome or resolution cannot be predicted at this time, or the amount of ultimate loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. These matters are subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of the individual litigated matters is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that certain of the actions, claims, inquiries or proceedings could be decided unfavorably to the Company or any of its subsidiaries involved. Accordingly, it is possible that an adverse outcome from such a proceeding could exceed the amount accrued in an amount that could be material to the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company has executed contracts involving indemnification obligations customary in the relevant industry and indemnifications specific to a transaction, such as the sale of a business. These indemnification obligations might include claims relating to the following: environmental matters; intellectual property rights; governmental regulations and employment-related matters; customer, supplier and other commercial contractual relationships and financial matters. Specifically, the Company has indemnified various parties for the costs associated with remediating numerous hazardous substance storage, recycling or disposal sites in many states and, in some instances, for natural resource damages. The amount of any such expenses or related natural resource damages for which the Company may be held responsible could be substantial. In addition, Hertz entered into customary indemnification agreements with Hertz Holdings and certain of the Company's stockholders and their affiliates pursuant to which Hertz Holdings and Hertz will indemnify those entities and their respective affiliates, directors, officers, partners, members, employees, agents, representatives and controlling persons, against certain liabilities arising out of performance of a consulting agreement with Hertz Holdings and each of such entities and certain other claims and liabilities, including liabilities arising out of financing arrangements or securities offerings. The Company has entered into customary indemnification agreements with each of its directors and certain of its officers. Performance under these indemnification obligations would generally be triggered by a breach of terms of the contract or by a third-party claim. In connection with the separation of the car rental business in 2016, the Company executed an agreement with Herc Holdings Inc. that contains mutual indemnification clauses and a customary indemnification provision with respect to liability arising out of, or resulting from, assumed legal matters. The Company regularly evaluates the probability of having to incur costs associated with these indemnification obligations and has accrued for expected losses that are probable and estimable.