Table 6-1. State legislation regarding P2P carsharing, status as of November 2023.

Some jurisdictions have additional protection for shared-vehicle owners by prohibiting insurers from canceling standard motor vehicle insurance merely because the insured participates in a P2P carsharing service. Others, however, have foregone adopting the model act in favor of a piecemeal approach, passing separate ad hoc amendments to existing insurance (and other) statutes or proposing bills that would do the same. Maryland has a stand-alone P2P statute and in July 2022, Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1222 amended a portion of the insurance status to the amended peer-to-peer program. Still others have elected to regulate P2P programs only at airports, enabling, encouraging, or mandating that P2P programs enter into agreements or contracts with airports in their jurisdictions, as discussed in Chapter 7.

6.3 Consumer Protection Disclosures

The NCOIL model act on P2P carsharing addresses consumer protection disclosures but requires disclosure only of the status, applicability, scope, and ownership of insurance on the vehicle to be shared. Each jurisdiction that has adopted insurance provisions has, at a minimum, required disclosures to at least the same extent as the model act does. Some, however, have expanded the required disclosures to include recall data and additional rates or charges. Although there is not much traction among state legislatures for more road- and personal safety–related regulation, some commenters have cited additional safety concerns for vehicle owners considering participation in a P2P carsharing service. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2018), for example, warns users that the vehicles they rent may be subject to recalls, or may improperly or carelessly be put back on the road after a crash or without maintenance. The Federal Trade Commission (Krown 2022) similarly warns that a vehicle’s safety features or the owner’s safety

precautions, if they exist at all, may not be sufficient to protect renters or their valuables. Illicit P2P carsharing also creates safety concerns, concerns with which Hawai’i is familiar (Tanji 2023).

6.4 Taxation

Taxation is currently the biggest point of dispute between jurisdictions and P2P carsharing businesses. P2P businesses often resist proposed statewide taxation, often claiming they will have to leave the state. However, P2P carsharing businesses continue to grow even in the more contentious jurisdictions (Elliot 2019). The dispute is an extension of the identity problem TNCs and P2P companies have faced since their inception—what kind of company they really are. But unlike with insurance, the fight over taxation does not have the benefit of a model act. Perhaps this is because the question of insurance is generally less financially consequential to P2P carsharing businesses than taxation, but the lack of formal, bipartisan guidance leaves companies like Turo and Getaround faced with a patchwork of taxation.

Some jurisdictions have decided not to tax P2P operations at all, including, as of November 2023, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Most jurisdictions that do tax P2P carsharing businesses do so separately from TNCs and conventional rental companies and by imposing the tax on the P2P program (not the vehicle owner or user) and the gross receipts of each carsharing period. Where jurisdictions differ is the percentage of gross receipts. As of April 2023, the median and most common rate was 6 percent, the lowest was 2 percent, and the highest was 10 percent. Many jurisdictions, including Maryland (sales and use tax), Iowa (sales tax), and Virginia (use tax), tax P2P operations at the state level, but some allow political subdivisions to tax P2P operations as well. For example, Nevada allows Clark and Washoe counties to assess an additional 2 percent tax on top of the 10 percent assessed statewide. A handful, including Hawai’i, use flat surcharges to collect taxes on P2P operations.