The CFC Question: Should P2P Car Sharing Pay Customer Facility Charges?

What Is a CFC and Why Does It Matter?

A Customer Facility Charge is a per-transaction-day fee imposed on rental car customers at airports, typically ranging from $4.50 to more than $10 per day depending on the jurisdiction. Unlike Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), which are federally authorized under 49 U.S.C. §40117, CFCs are creatures of state and local law. Each state's enabling legislation defines who collects the charge, who pays it, and what it funds.

CFC revenues serve a specific purpose: financing the construction, operation, and debt service of Consolidated Rental Car Facilities (ConRACs) and related ground transportation infrastructure. At large-hub airports, ConRAC capital programs routinely exceed $1 billion. The facilities are typically financed with special facility revenue bonds backed primarily — and sometimes exclusively — by CFC collections.

This financing structure makes the precise legal definition of who must collect and remit CFCs a question with direct credit implications. If a growing category of vehicle rental activity falls outside CFC collection requirements, the revenue base supporting these bonds could narrow over time.

How State Statutes Define the CFC Obligation

The CFC obligation flows from state enabling legislation, and the critical variable is how each state defines the entities required to collect the charge. Most state CFC statutes use some variation of “rental car company” or “car rental agency” — terms that typically contemplate a business model in which a company owns or controls a fleet of vehicles and rents them directly to consumers. California Government Code §50474.3, for example, authorizes CFC collection by “on-airport rental vehicle companies” — defined as rental companies operating under an airport property lease, concession, or license agreement.¹ Florida Statute §212.0606 imposes the rental car surcharge on each transaction day during which a customer rents a motor vehicle from a “motor vehicle rental company,” which the statute defines as an entity “in the business of providing, for financial consideration, motor vehicles to the public under a rental agreement.”²

Peer-to-peer car sharing platforms operate differently. The platform itself owns no vehicles. Instead, it connects individual vehicle owners with renters, facilitating the transaction and providing insurance coverage. The vehicle owner retains title and responsibility for maintenance; the platform provides the marketplace and handles payment processing.

This structural distinction creates a statutory interpretation question: does a technology platform that facilitates vehicle rentals between private parties constitute a “rental car company” under state CFC law?

The NCOIL Model Act and Its Influence

The National Council of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) adopted a Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing Program Model Act at its December 2019 annual meeting that has been influential in shaping state-level regulation. The model act explicitly defines “peer-to-peer car sharing” as a distinct activity and states that it “shall not be considered renting” or “rental car” activity for regulatory purposes. According to the Transportation Research Board (ACRP Research Report 274, Chapter 6), 30 jurisdictions had passed P2P car sharing legislation as of November 2023, and most were influenced by the NCOIL framework.

Some states enacted P2P legislation independently before the NCOIL model existed. California, for example, passed AB 1871 in 2010 — nearly a decade before NCOIL adopted its model — making it the first state to create a regulatory framework for personal vehicle sharing programs. Other states, including Florida, Washington, Colorado, Indiana, and Ohio, adopted P2P legislation in the years following the NCOIL model's publication. Regardless of whether a given state's law predated or followed the NCOIL framework, the common effect has been to create a regulatory category for P2P car sharing that is separate from traditional rental car regulation. The practical result in these states may be that P2P platforms are not subject to statutes that impose obligations on “rental car companies,” potentially including CFC collection requirements.

However, not every state has adopted P2P-specific legislation, and among those that have, the scope and language vary. The question of CFC applicability may turn on the specific statutory text in each jurisdiction.

Airports Where Turo Currently Operates

Turo, the largest P2P car sharing platform in the U.S., has entered into operating agreements with a growing number of airports. Based on publicly available airport board minutes, press releases, and permit records, the following airports have authorized Turo operations on airport property:

Table entries reflect terms disclosed in publicly available airport agreements, board records, and news reporting reviewed as of February 2026. CFC applicability may depend on state law, airport authority enabling legislation, and transaction structures not fully reflected in public documents. Dates marked with “~” are approximate.

A pattern emerges from this data: at most airports where Turo has secured an operating agreement or permit, the arrangement involves a concession fee — typically structured as a percentage of gross revenue — rather than CFC collection. These airports have permitted Turo access in exchange for revenue sharing, without incorporating per-transaction-day CFC collection into the terms.

The notable exception is Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). LAX has sought to impose its $7.50/day facility charge on Turo, treating the platform as equivalent to a rental car company for fee purposes. Turo filed suit in 2018 (Case No. 2:18-cv-06055) challenging this classification. The litigation has proceeded through multiple rounds in federal court, including a Ninth Circuit memorandum opinion in 2021 that vacated a preliminary injunction against Turo. As of early 2026, the underlying dispute — whether Turo must pay the per-day facility charge or only a percentage-based concession fee — remains before the federal district court (last docket activity: May 2024). LAX is therefore the clearest example of an airport authority taking the position that P2P transactions should generate CFC-equivalent revenue.

The Legal Landscape: How Courts Have Ruled

Courts that have addressed the status of P2P car sharing platforms at airports have reached divergent conclusions, and the reasoning in each case offers insight into the statutory interpretation challenges involved.

California: Turo Is Not a Rental Car Company

In litigation involving San Francisco International Airport (SFO), the California Court of Appeal ruled in 2022 that Turo, as a platform connecting vehicle owners with renters, was not itself a rental car company under the applicable California statutes. The decision, Turo Inc. v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco, 80 Cal.App.5th 517 [Justia mirror; no official courts.ca.gov URL available], reversed a lower court ruling that had supported the airport's position. Notably, the San Francisco Superior Court had reportedly ruled in 2020 [as reported by Auto Rental News; trial court opinion not publicly available for independent verification] that Turo was a rental car company, finding that nothing in the statute required a rental car company to own the vehicles it rents — an interpretation the appellate court rejected.

The California ruling turned in part on the state's existing P2P car sharing legislation (California Insurance Code §11580.24 et seq., effective 2010), which created a distinct regulatory framework for personal vehicle sharing programs separate from the rental car regulatory scheme.

Massachusetts: Airport Authority Prevails on Proprietary Grounds

In a contrasting outcome, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in April 2021 upheld the Massachusetts Port Authority's (Massport) enforcement action against Turo at Boston Logan International Airport (BOS). The court's reasoning addressed two distinct issues. First, the court rejected Turo's argument that it was immune from regulation under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, holding that the statute did not shield the platform from Massport's proprietary enforcement authority.⁸ Second, the court upheld Massport's broad authority to regulate commercial activity on airport property, regardless of whether Turo technically qualified as a “rental car company” under state law. The practical effect was that Turo was prohibited from conducting vehicle exchanges on Massport property.

The Massachusetts case illustrates an important distinction: even where a P2P platform may not meet the statutory definition of a rental car company for CFC purposes, an airport authority with sufficiently broad enabling legislation may still have the power to regulate, restrict, or prohibit P2P operations on airport property through its general proprietary authority. Turo remains unable to operate at Logan Airport as of the date of this article.

Florida: Operating Agreement Following Litigation

Tampa International Airport (TPA) entered into an operating agreement under which Turo pays concession fees but does not collect CFCs. Florida has adopted P2P-specific legislation (Fla. Stat. §627.7483 et seq.) that classifies P2P car sharing as distinct from traditional car rental, which may have informed the terms of the agreement.

Los Angeles: Active Federal Litigation

The LAX dispute, described above, represents the most direct test of whether an airport can impose CFC-equivalent charges on P2P platforms. Turo filed suit in 2018 (Case No. 2:18-cv-06055, C.D. Cal.) challenging the airport's attempt to classify it as a rental car company and impose the $7.50/day facility charge, arguing that such fees were unconstitutional under California's Proposition 26 because they bore no reasonable relation to the cost of services provided to a technology platform. The case has involved a Ninth Circuit memorandum opinion vacating a preliminary injunction, and as of early 2026, the district court proceedings continue (last docket activity: May 2024). The outcome may have significant precedential value for other airports evaluating CFC applicability to P2P platforms.

Other Jurisdictions

Myrtle Beach International Airport in South Carolina terminated its operating relationship with Turo [news source; no official airport authority record found] in August 2024, citing operational and capacity concerns — an example of an airport using its proprietary authority to discontinue P2P access. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) and Turo were engaged in litigation that was resolved through a settlement agreement approved by the DFW Airport Board in June 2024, with Turo subsequently obtaining operating authorization at DFW.

Who Bears the CFC Obligation? Hosts, Platforms, or Neither?

The preceding sections address whether the platform (Turo) is a “rental car company” under state law. But there is a second question that has received less attention: if the platform is not a rental car company, what about the individual vehicle owners who list their cars on the platform? And separately, does the platform have any obligation to collect CFCs on behalf of the state, even if the platform itself is not the rental car company?

Are Individual Turo Hosts “Rental Car Companies”?

State CFC statutes were written to capture commercial rental car operators, and most use language that contemplates an entity “in the business of” renting vehicles. California's CFC statute defines an “on-airport rental vehicle company” as a rental company operating under an airport property lease, concession, or license agreement — language that presupposes a formal contractual relationship with the airport authority.¹ Florida's CFC statute defines a “motor vehicle rental company” as an entity “in the business of providing, for financial consideration, motor vehicles to the public under a rental agreement.”²

An individual who lists one to three personal vehicles on Turo would have difficulty meeting these definitions for several reasons. First, most CFC statutes require the entity to be “in the business” of renting vehicles, which implies a degree of commercial scale and intent that an individual sharing a personal vehicle may not exhibit. Second, many CFC frameworks — particularly at the airport level — require a lease or concession agreement with the airport authority, a contractual relationship that individual hosts typically do not have. Third, these statutes were written before P2P car sharing emerged and envision companies operating dedicated rental car fleets at airport facilities, not individuals renting personal vehicles through a mobile application.

As of February 2026, no state has explicitly extended CFC collection requirements to individual P2P car-sharing hosts. The California Court of Appeal's 2022 decision found that even Turo itself — a company facilitating thousands of vehicle rentals — was not a rental car company under California law, which suggests that individual hosts operating at far smaller scale would be even further removed from the statutory definition.

That said, the question is not entirely settled. Florida's CFC statute, for example, does not explicitly require the rental car company to own vehicles or be a traditional commercial operator — it defines the entity as one “in the business of providing” motor vehicles “under a rental agreement.” Whether a high-volume Turo host operating five or more vehicles at an airport could be classified as “in the business of renting” remains an open question in most jurisdictions.

Does Turo Have a Collection Obligation as a Marketplace Facilitator?

Even if the individual host is not a “rental car company” for CFC purposes, there is a separate question: should the platform be required to collect the CFC on behalf of the state, analogous to how marketplace facilitator laws have required online platforms to collect sales tax since South Dakota v. Wayfair (2018)?

As of February 2026, no state has enacted legislation specifically requiring P2P platforms to collect airport CFCs. Traditional CFC statutes predated the marketplace facilitator framework and have not been updated to incorporate it. However, the broader legislative trajectory is worth examining.

Several states have passed laws requiring P2P car-sharing platforms to collect and remit rental car surcharges and taxes that are distinct from, but structurally similar to, airport CFCs:

The critical distinction: these are state-level taxes and rental car surcharges, not airport-specific CFCs. Hawaii's tiered surcharge and Florida's $1/day surcharge resemble CFCs in structure, but they are general revenue mechanisms — not dedicated to airport ConRAC debt service. No state has yet enacted legislation to require platforms to collect the airport-specific CFC.

Turo's Own Position on Tax and Fee Collection

Turo has consistently maintained that it is a technology platform, not a rental car company, and that the California legislature recognized car sharing as a distinct activity separate from rental car operations. In its 2018 lawsuit against LAX (Case No. 2:18-cv-06055), Turo challenged the airport's attempt to impose the $7.50/day facility charge, arguing that such fees were unconstitutional under California's Proposition 26.

In practice, Turo has adopted a pragmatic approach. According to Turo's own help center, the company collects “airport-related fees” at select airports, which may appear under labels such as “Airport permit fee,” “Concession recovery fee,” or “Operator fee” — but these are negotiated concession fees, not traditional CFCs. Where state law explicitly requires platform collection of surcharges (as in Hawaii, Florida, Nevada, and Pennsylvania), Turo collects and remits those charges.

Turo's 2022 SEC S-1 filing disclosed regulatory risk from airport-related lawsuits, identifying four pending lawsuits regarding airport use and acknowledging potential liability for fees, fines, or taxes.

The Airbnb Analogy: Instructive but Limited

The evolution of Airbnb's relationship with transient occupancy taxes (TOT / “hotel taxes”) has been cited as a potential parallel for how the CFC question may develop. In its early years, Airbnb maintained that it was a technology platform, not a hotel operator, and that individual hosts — not the platform — were responsible for collecting and remitting local occupancy taxes. Over time, a growing number of jurisdictions passed laws explicitly requiring platforms to collect occupancy taxes. Airbnb now collects and remits occupancy taxes in a large and growing number of jurisdictions.

Some observers have suggested a similar trajectory may unfold for P2P car sharing and CFCs. The pattern of state-by-state legislative mandates requiring platform collection is already visible for rental car surcharges in states like Hawaii, Florida, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. However, the analogy has important limitations. Airport CFCs are structurally different from hotel occupancy taxes: CFCs fund dedicated infrastructure (ConRACs) used primarily by traditional rental car companies, whereas occupancy taxes are general revenue instruments. P2P car sharing customers at airports with Turo agreements typically pick up vehicles in general parking areas, not within the ConRAC — raising a question about whether the infrastructure nexus that justifies CFC collection exists for P2P transactions. Whether the Airbnb trajectory is predictive for airport CFCs remains to be seen.

State-by-State Statutory Exposure

The applicability of CFC statutes to P2P platforms depends heavily on each state's specific legislative language. A useful framework for evaluating exposure groups states into three categories based on their current regulatory posture:

States With P2P-Specific Legislation

States that have enacted dedicated P2P car sharing statutes — often influenced by the NCOIL model act — generally define P2P activity as distinct from rental car activity. In these states, the argument that P2P platforms fall outside CFC statutes may carry more weight, because the legislature has affirmatively created a separate regulatory category.

States in this group include California, Florida, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, and others. However, it is important to note that even within this group, the specific language varies, and few if any state legislatures have explicitly addressed CFC applicability in their P2P statutes. The CFC exemption, where it exists, may be implied rather than express.

States Without P2P Legislation

In states that have not enacted P2P-specific legislation, the question of whether a P2P platform is a “rental car company” for CFC purposes may be more open. Traditional rental car industry participants and airport authorities could argue that a platform facilitating vehicle rentals for compensation should be subject to the same obligations as any other entity providing that service, regardless of the ownership structure.

States in this group may include Illinois, Virginia, Rhode Island, and others, though the regulatory landscape continues to evolve. In these jurisdictions, the CFC question may ultimately require either legislative clarification or judicial interpretation.

States Where the Answer Remains Unclear

Some states have enacted partial P2P regulation (addressing insurance, for example, without addressing airport-specific charges) or have CFC statutes with language that could be read either way. Texas, for instance, has P2P legislation but its CFC framework is locally administered, creating the possibility of different outcomes at different airports within the same state.

The Bondholder Perspective

CFC-backed bonds represent a distinct credit category within airport finance. Unlike general airport revenue bonds (GARBs), which benefit from diversified revenue streams and the airline rate covenant backstop, CFC bonds typically depend on a single revenue source: the per-day charge collected on rental car transactions.

CFC bonds generally carry ratings in the A category — one to three notches below the AA-range ratings typical of large-hub GARBs — reflecting both the single-source revenue dependency and the sensitivity to changes in rental car transaction volumes. Credit analysts evaluating CFC bonds routinely examine trends in rental car market share, transaction volumes, and average rental duration.

The emergence of P2P car sharing as a substitute for traditional rental cars introduces a variable that may not have been contemplated in the original bond feasibility studies or rate covenants for many existing CFC bond issues. If P2P transactions grow as a proportion of airport-related vehicle rentals, and if those transactions do not generate CFC revenue, the effective CFC revenue base could narrow.

This does not mean that existing CFC bond structures are immediately at risk. Most CFC bonds include coverage requirements, rate adjustment mechanisms, and contingency provisions. Many airports also have the ability to increase CFC rates within statutory limits. However, the long-term trajectory matters for credit analysis, particularly for bonds with 25- to 30-year maturities.

Policy Considerations

The CFC-P2P question sits at an intersection of several policy objectives that may not align neatly:

Infrastructure funding. ConRAC facilities serve all rental car customers. If P2P transactions represent a growing share of airport-related vehicle rentals, the question arises whether the customers who use those facilities through traditional rental companies bear a disproportionate share of the infrastructure cost. At the same time, P2P customers at airports with Turo agreements are typically picking up vehicles in general parking areas, not within the ConRAC itself — which may weaken the argument that CFC collection is appropriate for those transactions.

Competitive considerations. Traditional rental car companies have raised concerns about regulatory differences. The American Car Rental Association (ACRA) has formally advocated for P2P platforms to be subject to the same airport charges as traditional operators. From the industry's perspective, the absence of CFC collection on P2P transactions creates a pricing difference unrelated to operational efficiency. P2P platforms counter that they offer a fundamentally different service, use different airport infrastructure, and are appropriately regulated under separate statutory frameworks.

Innovation and consumer choice. P2P car sharing offers consumers additional options, potentially with different vehicle types, pricing models, and pickup/return flexibility. Some states have adopted P2P-specific regulatory frameworks precisely to enable this innovation while addressing insurance and consumer protection concerns.

Airport revenue optimization. Airports face a practical question: is the current concession-fee-based model for P2P operations the best available approach, or would a model that includes CFC-equivalent charges generate more revenue while maintaining competitive fairness? This analysis may vary by airport based on P2P penetration rates, existing CFC bond covenants, and the legal authority available under state law.

What Airports and Legislators May Wish to Consider

This discussion does not yield a single prescriptive answer — the right approach depends on state law, airport-specific circumstances, and policy priorities. However, several questions may merit evaluation:

For airport finance professionals: What share of airport-related vehicle rental transactions currently occurs through P2P platforms? How does that share trend over time? What would the CFC revenue impact be at projected P2P growth rates? Do existing CFC bond indentures contemplate adjustments to the CFC collection base?

For state legislators: Does the current CFC enabling statute clearly address whether P2P car sharing transactions are subject to the charge? If not, is that ambiguity intentional? Would legislative clarification — in either direction — provide more certainty for airport capital planning and bond markets? The Tax Foundation has recommended that states consider modernizing P2P car-sharing tax frameworks.

For rating agencies and bondholders: Is P2P market share growth reflected in CFC bond surveillance? Are feasibility studies for new CFC bond issues incorporating P2P substitution scenarios?

For P2P platforms: As airport operating agreements become more common, could voluntary participation in CFC-like infrastructure funding mechanisms serve as a pathway to broader regulatory acceptance and reduce litigation risk?

The answers to these questions will likely vary by state and by airport. What seems clear is that the current framework — in which a growing category of airport-related vehicle rental activity generally does not generate CFC revenue — presents questions that the market participants and policymakers involved in airport ground transportation finance may need to address more explicitly than they have to date.

Changelog

© 2026 DWU Consulting. All rights reserved.