New notice: "The travel administrators for [your contract ID] will be emailed..."
 

Warning to anyone who is using a contract ID you are not authorized to use: There is a new notice that appears on the reservation page on the website that says, "The travel administrators for [x] will be emailed rental details for this reservation."

Where are you seeing this? I am not for my bookings using my authorized contract ID, and I book at national.com and not our portal

Which CID are you using (if public, or publicly searchable)? Perhaps it's just for that particular one. I can't imagine administrators for airline contract IDs or other large organizations will want to see an email for each of the thousands of rentals made under their code.

-J.

I saw the same thing. Seems to show on maybe 2 out of 10 contract IDs.

It's not a public ID so I can't share. As @miadeals said, it seems to be targeted based on the ID so maybe the company has to opt in.

Hertz has been doing this with my company for a while. We book through Concur if that helps. Luckily we have a process where I can mark something as personal travel when appropriate.
I noticed a few years ago that they would sometimes ask on checkout if I was still with company XYZ.

That's interesting. Incidentally, I think I've only used my company's ID once or twice since other, publicly-available ones often yield better rates.

-J.

For folks who use IDs they are not really qualified for, it will be interesting to see i there is any impact. One thing that does happen is that groups negotiate discounts, but the discounts require certain minimum booking thresholds. It is possible that even if notified of a booking by an unauthorized person, the group agent may not be interested in pursuing anything since it a) takes time and b) could actually help the group hit/exceed booking commitments.

Are these possibly codes which include various insurance benefits as part of the negotiated discount? If so, the code-holder, e.g. employer, has an incentive not to cover people it does not control. More importantly for people who fraudulently use codes, it is all fine until it is not.

If there is a significant accident with real liability, e.g. where a third party is seriously injured, the first thing that will be checked is whether the driver fraudulently obtained the vehicle. If so, coverage will be denied under most policies.

This is completely incorrect. First, using a discount code is not "fraud" - it might be ethically out of bounds by some definitions, but it is not fraud. Second, I have never seen a private insurance policy that states coverage is denied if using a discount code for a car rental that you were not entitled to use. In fact, I discussed this scenario in depth with my insurance broker and they could find no evidence whatsoever in their policy language that would deny coverage, nor would they even know or care what discount code you are using or how you rented the car, or how you paid for the car, as long as you didn't steal it, use it for commercial purposes, drag-race with it, or use it as part of a criminal activity (ie, no bank robbery get-away cars).

Now would the insurance carrier providing the coverage to the code owner through EHI deny coverage? Probably they would, but that's irrelevant for someone who has their own insurance policy. This is only a risk for someone who does not carry their own personal policy.

The one I saw it on is explicitly labeled as a personal use code - no insurance attached.

It most certainly is wire fraud. Whether anyone will be prosecuted for it is a different question. But, do not for a minute think that using a discount code which you know you are not entitled to use in order to obtain a discount is anything other than fraud.

#1 "Please apply Code XXXX to my rental contract, even though I know that I am not authorized to use it and even though I know that it will reduce the rate you charge me and therefore your revenue and bottom line."

#2 . 18 USC Section 1343 (wire fraud)

"Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both...."

I think that's a bit of a stretch. That would mean every grandma who once used a double coupon on crackers when the store only allows one per item is guilty of wire fraud.

Analogies never work.

The question at hand is whether this practice is fraud.

It is.

Go ahead an email an “Administrator” for one of the big four public accounting/advisory firms... I’m sure you’ll get a response... I’ll keep using the codes without worry