Maybe they run the operation differently in Europe. But the initial return receipt Sixt sent me reflects a business practice of minutely tracking even the most minor cosmetic blemishes. Here's what was emailed to me immediately following my return:



Note that this receipt shows 14 existing damage items, and no "New Damage." Yet Sixt asserted several days later that I was responsible for three "New Damage" items that had not been noted upon return. At best, this was a serious processing error. At worst, it reflects an unfair or fraudulent business practice.

It is also extraordinarily dubious for Sixt to claim that new scratches to a vehicle with over 40k miles and 14 already notated "Existing Damages" items would measurably impact the vehicle's value. If this issue were litigated in the California courts, I'm confident Sixt would not prevail.