Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 482.31575 (2026)

Advertisement of lease: Disclosure of certain information required; exception

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 482.31575  Advertisement of lease: Disclosure of certain information required; exception.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a short-term lessor shall advertise, quote and charge a rate for leasing a passenger car which includes the entire amount that a short-term lessee must pay to lease the car for the period to which the rate applies, except taxes, charges for mileage and any fees paid to airports, including, without limitation, any concession fees which the short-term lessor pays to do business at an airport and which the short-term lessor charges to the short-term lessee.

      2.  The requirements of subsection 1 do not apply to fees charged pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 482.313 or additional charges imposed pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 482.3158 which are included in the quotation of an estimated total price for the short-term lease or which are separately identified and clearly disclosed in the lease agreement.

      3.  If a short-term lessor states a rate for lease of a passenger car in a printed advertisement or in a quotation transmitted by computer or telephone or in person, the lessor shall clearly disclose in the advertisement or quotation the terms of any mileage conditions relating to the advertised or quoted rate, including, but not limited to, the amount of mileage and gas charges, the number of miles for which no charges will be imposed and a description of geographic driving limitations.

      (Added to NRS by 1989, 1622; A 2009, 2143)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2010–2014 · leading case: Sobel v. Hertz Corp., 698 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (D. Nev. 2010).
Sobel v. Hertz Corp., 698 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (D. Nev. 2010). · cites it 81× “Nev.Rev.Stat. § 482.31575. Plaintiffs allege Hertz violated section 482.”
Lee v. Enter. Leasing Co.-West, LLC, 30 F. Supp. 3d 1002 (D. Nev. 2014). · cites it 67× “Interpretation of NRS 482.31575 Defendants seek summary judgment on the ground that their business practice of unbundling the ACRFs did not violate NRS 482.”
Sobel v. Hertz Corp., 291 F.R.D. 525 (D. Nev. 2013). · cites it 9× “On March 17, 2010, this court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on liability by rejecting Plaintiffs’ NDTPA claim, finding that Hertz had violated NRS § 482.31575, and denying both parties’ motions on the unjust enrichment claim.”
Sobel v. Hertz Corp., 53 F. Supp. 3d 1319 (D. Nev. 2014). · cites it 2× “On the relevant claim—Hertz’s violation of NRS § 482.31575—the Court found in Plaintiffs’ favor.”
Lee v. Enter. Leasing Co.-West, LLC, 300 F.R.D. 466 (D. Nev. 2014). · cites it 7× “Moreover, the putative class members’ claims implicate common legal questions with respect to the unbundled ACRFs, the resolution of which turn on the Court’s interpretation of NRS 482.31575. Thus, because the class members’ claims arise from a standard practice and implicate…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.