This bill amends RCW 47.04.310 to change what charges a rental car company may and may not separately state in a rental agreement. It allows separately stated surcharges and fees including child restraint system rental fees, airport-related recovery fees, and taxes or government surcharges directly imposed on the customer by a government agency. It bars a rental car company from separately stating a vehicle license cost recovery fee or from stating or implying that the state of Washington imposes such a fee. A company may describe its actual annual costs in Washington to license, title, register, plate, and inspect rental cars, but if it does so the agreement must include a disclaimer that those costs are imposed exclusively on the rental car company and not on the customer. The bill creates specific rules for child restraint system rental fees: the fee may be separately stated and charged for transactions originating in Washington, must be no more than the company’s good faith estimate of its costs to provide the system (the term “good faith estimate” is not defined here), and if a customer pays the fee but the system is not made available in a timely manner (customer-determined, but no less than one hour after arrival at pickup), the customer may cancel the reservation or agreement without cancellation charges and is entitled to a full refund of any rental-related costs paid. The measure references definitions of “rental car” and “rental car company” found in RCW 48.115.005 and affects rental car companies, rental customers, and government agencies. The extracted text does not include an effective date, broader enforcement mechanisms or penalties beyond the child restraint refund and cancellation remedy, the text of RCW 48.115.005, a definition of “good faith estimate,” or further explanation of “airport-related recovery fees.”

If enacted, rental car companies in Washington will be able to list certain separate charges like child seat rental fees, airport-related recovery fees, and taxes that governments directly impose, but they will no longer be able to show or imply a separate "vehicle license cost recovery fee" on customer contracts. Practically, companies will need to rewrite billing and contract language, and may absorb or reclassify vehicle licensing costs into other prices instead of passing them to customers as a named line item; customers should see fewer labeled pass-through license fees and clearer disclaimers if a company describes its own licensing costs. Because the bill allows companies to state their licensing costs only with a disclaimer that those costs are imposed on the company and not the customer, companies may face pressure on margins or change how they allocate rates to cover those costs, though how to calculate that impact is unclear without the missing definition of "good faith estimate" and the underlying definitions in RCW 48.115.005. The bill also limits child seat charges to no more than a company's good faith estimate of its cost and gives customers who paid a child seat fee the right to cancel and receive a full refund (with no cancellation penalties) if the seat is not available in a "timely manner," defined by the customer but not less than one hour after arrival. This likely forces rental companies to improve inventory management and fulfillment of child restraints or accept more refunds and cancellations, increasing operational risk and potentially raising other fees to offset losses. Key details needed to judge enforcement and exact compliance costs are missing, including an effective date, how "good faith estimate" is measured, definitions in RCW 48.115.005, and any enforcement or penalty mechanisms.