COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT

BUSINESS LITIGATION SESSION

)
MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) Civil Action No.
TURO INC., RMG DEVELOPMENT GROUP, )
LLC, AND JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1- )
100,
Defendants.
) received
)
) JUN 3 2019
VERIFIED COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. The plaintiff, the Massachusetts Port Authority (“Massport”), brings this action

against the defendants Turo, Inc. (“Turo”), RMG Development Group LLC (“RMG”), and John

Does 1-100 (“John Doe Defendants”) for (1) violation of 740 CMR 21.04(l)(b) and 740 CMR

23.08(l)(b), (2) trespass, (3) aiding and abetting trespass, (4) unjust enrichment, and

(5) declaratory judgment, based upon the defendants’ unauthorized operation of rental car

businesses at Logan International Airport (“Logan”). Massport regulates all commercial activity

at Logan, and requires all rental car companies operating at Logan to enter into a Rental Car

Agreement in order to, among other priorities, ensure the safety of those operations, minimize

congestion on airport roadways and terminal curbsides, recoup the costs of providing the

infrastructure making such businesses possible, and ensure rental car companies’ payment of

applicable fees and taxes. Despite multiple notices, Turo has refused to enter into a Rental Car

Agreement with Massport or receive any other form of authorization from Massport for it, RMG

or John Doe Defendants to operate at Logan. In addition to the revenues lost as a result of this
refusal, Turo’s expanding operations at Logan cause congestion on Logan’s roadways and curbs,

where Turo arranges for pickup and delivery of vehicles, cause safety risks from that increased

congestion, and result in an unfair competitive advantage for defendants over rental car

businesses duly authorized by Massport to operate at Logan.

THE PARTIES

2. Massport is a body politic and corporate, created by St. 1956, c. 465, as amended,

with its principal place of business at One Harborside Drive, East Boston, Massachusetts.

Massport owns and operates Logan.

3. Turo is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with a principal place

of business at 667 Mission Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, California.

4. RMG is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas with a principal place of

business at 245 First Street, Riverview II, 18th Floor, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

5. Upon information and belief, John Doe Defendants 1-100 are individuals and/or

companies that use Turo’s online platform to rent vehicles to customers at Logan. Although the

identities of all the John Doe Defendants are currently unknown, it is expected that their names

will be ascertained during discovery, at which time Massport may seek leave of this Court to add

those individuals’ and/or companies’ actual names to the Complaint as defendants.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to G.L. c. 212, § 4.

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Turo pursuant to G.L. c. 223A, § 3, by

virtue of Turo’s transaction of business within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and use of

real property in the Commonwealth, specifically at Logan.

2
 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over RMG pursuant to G.L. c. 223A, §§ 2

and 3, by virtue of RMG’s principal place of business in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and by

virtue of RMG’s transaction of business within the Commonwealth, and use of real property in

the Commonwealth, specifically at Logan.

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the John Doe Defendants, by virtue of

the John Doe Defendants’ transaction of business within the Commonwealth, and by virtue of

the John Doe Defendants’ use of real property in the Commonwealth, specifically at Logan.

10. Venue in this Court is proper under G.L. c. 214, § 5 and G.L. c. 223, § 1.

FACTS

Background

11. Massport was created pursuant to its Enabling Act. St. 1956, c. 465. The

Enabling Act transferred to Massport title to Logan and specifically provides that “the possession

of the airport properties [including Logan] shall be transferred to the Authority and there shall be

vested in the Authority the control, operation and maintenance of the airport properties and all

rents, tolls, charges and revenues pertaining thereto.” St. 1956, c. 465, § 5.

12. The Enabling Act also authorizes Massport to “fix and revise from time to time

and charge and collect tolls, rates, fees, rentals and other charges for the use of [Logan],” St.

1956, c. 465, § 3(i), and “to establish rules and regulations for the use of [Logan].” Id. at § 3(g).

13. Massport’s regulations, promulgated pursuant to § 3(g) of the Enabling Act,

provide that “[n]o person, unless duly authorized by the Executive Director, shall in or upon any

area of the Airport, including but not limited to any lobby, sidewalk, stairway, roadway, [or]

Airport highway . . . [c]arry on any commercial activity or conduct operations of a commercial

nature.” 740 CMR 21.04(1)(b). In addition, “No Operator or Driver shall solicit or transact car

3
rental business at Logan Airport except as authorized pursuant to a current and valid agreement

specifically permitting such activities.” 740 CMR 23.08(1)(b).

14. Massport is required by federal law to maintain a fee and rental structure that

makes Logan as financially self-sustaining as possible. See 49 U.S.C. § 47101(a)(13); Policy

and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, 64 Fed. Reg. 7696, 7720 (February 16,

1999).

15. Under its statutory and regulatory authority, and in fulfillment of its federal

obligations, Massport requires all businesses operating at Logan to obtain authorization to do so,

typically in the form of an operating agreement. This ensures a mechanism for Massport to

collect fees from these businesses and to ensure safe and orderly operations at its facilities.

16. All rental car companies operating at Logan, whether based on or off-airport, are

required to enter into Rental Car Agreements. These agreements require both on and off-airport

rental car companies to conduct operations out of the Rental Car Center (“RCC”) and to utilize

Massport’s Common Area Transit System (“CATS”) to transport passengers to and from the

terminals. Massport developed the RCC and CATS, in part, to reduce traffic and curbside

congestion at Logan and to reduce air emissions from vehicles and buses on Logan’s roadways.

Rental car companies are not permitted to transact business on Logan roadways, terminal

curbsides, or elsewhere at Logan other than the RCC.

17. Under the Rental Car Agreements, Massport requires rental car companies that

operate out of the RCC to pay Concession Fees and CATS Fees. Under separate leases or

subleases for space in the RCC, Massport also requires rental car companies that operate out of

the RCC to pay Customer Facility Charges (used to pay the bonds for the RCC) and rent. Off-

airport rental car companies do not enter into leases or subleases for space in the RCC, but their

4
shuttle buses are required to pick up and discharge customers at the RCC, and they are required

to pay Massport Concession Fees for airport rentals, RCC Facility Access Charges, and the

CATS Fees designed to recover that share of Massport’s costs of providing the RCC and CATS

allocable to off-airport rental car companies.

18. Rental Car Agreements also impose various requirements on rental car companies

operating at Logan, including: (a) minimum quality of service standards for vehicles and

personnel; (b) security requirements; (c) indemnity obligations to Massport and minimum

insurance levels for general liability, automobile liability, and workers’ compensation policies;

(d) requirements regarding disadvantaged business enterprises; and (e) payment of applicable

taxes and fees. With respect to insurance requirements, Massport is required to be listed as an

additional insured on rental car companies’ insurance policies.

19. Massport’s Rental Car Agreements ensure fair competition, on a level playing

field, among the rental car companies doing business at Logan.

20. Thirteen rental car companies currently operate out of the RCC. Twelve of those

companies have entered into a Rental Car Agreement and an RCC lease with Massport or a

sublease. One off-airport rental car company does not have a lease or sublease for space in the

RCC, but has entered into a Rental Car Agreement with Massport and brings its customers to the

RCC, where they then transfer to the CATS for transportation to the terminals. Under its

agreements with these rental car companies, Massport generates more than $80 million in

revenue annually, which is used to pay the capital and operating costs of Logan’s facilities,

including the RCC, the CATS and Logan’s roadways.

21. For example, for fiscal year 2018, Massport collected more than $33 million in

Customer Facility Charges (assessed at a rate of $6.00 per rental car transaction day), and

5
approximately $34 million in Concession Fees from rental car companies (calculated as 10% of

each rental car company’s gross revenues), approximately $8 million in rent for the RCC

(assessed at various square footage rates for various areas of the RCC), and more than $7 million

in CATS fees (at $5.73 per rental car transaction).

22. Rental car companies are also subject to a number of taxes and fees, including a

surcharge of $10 for each rental car transaction to support the Massachusetts Convention Center

Authority. In calendar year 2018, that surcharge, based on 1,290,894 transactions, totaled nearly

$13 million. In addition, rental car companies are also assessed a municipal fee of $0.60 per

transaction for the City of Boston, totaling approximately $775,000 in calendar year 2018, and a

Municipal Police Training Fee in the amount of $2.00/transaction, which went into effect on

January 1, 2019, and which is expected to generate nearly $2.6 million in calendar year 2019.

23. The Rental Car Agreement for off-airport rental car companies requires those

companies to pay Massport a 10% Concession Fee on gross revenues from airport rentals, as

well as the CATS Fee (at $5.73 per airport rental transaction) and a Facility Access Charge in the

amount of $2.50 per airport rental transaction.

24. Logan passenger traffic has grown enormously in the past five years. In 2013

there were approximately 30 million passengers departing and arriving at Logan. In 2018 that

number increased to nearly 41 million. In terms of passenger volume, Logan is currently the

16th busiest airport in the country.

25. Roadway and terminal curbside congestion have also grown enormously over the

past several years. By way of example, average daily traffic at the Terminal A departures

roadway has increased nearly 30% from 2015 through 2018, from 6,251 daily vehicles on

6
average in 2015 to 8,078 daily vehicles on average in 2018. This congestion on Logan’s

roadways and curbsides has caused significant delays and safety risks.

Turo’s Business Model

26. Turo is a web-based rental car company that allows individuals and businesses to

list cars for rent that users can pick up at various locations throughout the country.

27. Although Turo does not own any of the cars available for rent on its website, it is

heavily involved in the rental process and provides a number of services to both car owners and

car renters.

28. Turo posts rental car listings on its website and mobile applications, allows

customers to search for specific cars based on location and other filters, provides owners of

vehicles advertised on its website with $1 million in liability insurance for their vehicles, and

collects payment for rentals.

29. In addition to offering liability insurance for each rental car, Turo imposes

“rigorous eligibility standards” for vehicles available to rent, provides 24/7 roadside service and

emergency support to customers, and screens prospective renters before allowing them to rent

vehicles.

30. Turo also provides professional photographers to take free photographs of the

vehicles available for rent, and sets the rental price for each car “based on market value, location,

time of year, and other data sets.”

31. Turo imposes a number of standardized policies on all rentals, including a

cancellation policy, a cleaning policy, an additional usage (i.e., late return) policy, a security

deposit policy, a smoking policy, a pet policy, a privacy policy, and a standard terms of service.

7
 32. In exchange for its services, Turo collects payment from its customers, retains a

portion of that payment, and then remits the remainder to the vehicle owner.

Turo’s Operations at Logan and Other Airports

33. Turo provides three options for drivers to meet customers: (1) “Owners deliver to

custom locations around town, within a set radius”; (2) “Owners deliver to nearby airports”; or

(3) “Travelers pick up the car at the owner’s location.” The following screenshot is taken from

Turo’s website:

34. In addition to encouraging car owners to make their cars available at airports,

Turo touts the fact that many of the cars available for rent on its website can be picked up at

airports, including Logan. When searching for vehicles available for pick up at Logan, Turo’s

8
website advertises that users can “[s]kip the rental counter.” The following screenshot is taken

from Turo’s website:

35. On its website, under its airport delivery option, Turo encourages users to pick up

cars curbside at an airport terminal, at an airport parking lot, at a Turo valet lot (which Logan

does not have) or at some other location identified by the vehicle owner. The following

screenshot is taken from Turo’s website:

36. Turo has a page dedicated to airports, titled “Alternatives to Airport car rental.”

Logan is listed as one of Turo’s “Top Airports” on that page.

9
 37. Turo consistently advertises more than 200 vehicles available to rent from Logan.

The following screenshot is taken from Turo’s website:

38. Turo typically imposes a surcharge of between $40 and $120 for airport pick up.

RMG’s and John Doe Defendants’ Operations Through Turo

39. Although Turo markets itself as a “peer-to-peer” car rental service, many of the

vehicles available for rent on Turo’s platform from Logan are from rental car companies,

including from RMG, which specializes in renting out luxury vehicles.

10
 40. On Turo’s website, RMG lists 14 separate vehicles available to rent, all of which

may be picked up curbside at Logan. The following screenshots are taken from Turo’s website:

11
 41. RMG offers exclusively luxury vehicles for rent, including an Alfa Romeo 4C, 6

different Porsche models, a Jaguar F-Type S, and three Maseratis.

42. RMG’s vehicles are typically available for Airport pickup for an $85 surcharge,

although the surcharge may be waived for longer-term rentals.

12
 43. On its website, www.RMGCars.com, RMG describes itself as an apartment and

car rental company. RMG’s “Car Rentals” page consists of a list of its vehicles available for rent

through Turo.

44. Based on Turo’s website, it appears that the other John Doe Defendants also offer

a variety of vehicles for rent, and take advantage of the Turo website and Turo’s services to

customers in the same manner as RMG.

Massport’s Attempts to Regulate Turo

45. Turo began operating at Logan at 2013 under its previous name, RelayRides. As

of July 2013, it offered only about 30 vehicles for pick up at Logan. See Katie Johnston, Car

Rental Options at Logan Expand; Debate Likely to Grow, Boston Globe, July 4, 2013, available

at https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/07/03/another-car-sharing-company-lands-

logan-airport/qxH3gSQpPGqg5QajZKVctL/story.html.

46. On April 7, 2016, Massport sent Turo a letter notifying Turo that, since Turo had

not yet entered into an agreement with Massport, it was “currently not in compliance with

[Massport’s] regulations regarding any such business activity at [Logan].” Massport informed

Turo that it was required to execute a Rental Car Agreement, and requested a meeting with

Turo’s local support team to better understand Turo’s business model. A true copy of

Massport’s April 7, 2016 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

47. On April 12, 2016, Michelle Peacock, Turo’s Vice President, Head of

Government Relations, responded to Massport’s letter, stating that Turo was not operating a

rental car business at Logan and therefore that Turo “will not be applying for a permit.” A true

copy of Turo’s April 12, 2016 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

13
 48. On April 26, 2016, Massport sent a Cease & Desist Notice to Turo stating that, as

long as Turo refused to execute an agreement with Massport, “Turo may not undertake any

vehicle rental activity at [Logan], including advertising the availability of any such vehicles at

[Logan].” A true copy of Massport’s April 26, 2016 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Turo

did not comply with that notice.

49. From 2013 to 2018, the number of vehicles available for rent at Logan on Turo’s

website grew substantially. Turo now offers, on average, more than 200 vehicles to rent from

Logan on a daily basis. Turo drivers have been observed leaving cars at Logan, both curbside at

the terminals and in airport parking lots.

50. On May 14, 2018, Massport sent a second Cease & Desist notice to Turo. Turo

did not respond to this second notice. A true copy of Massport’s May 14, 2018 letter is attached

hereto as Exhibit D.

51. To date, Turo has refused to enter into any sort of agreement with Massport

concerning its commercial operations at Logan. In particular, Turo has failed to enter into a

Rental Car Agreement with Massport to conduct its on-airport business in accordance with

Massport’s requirements, or a lease with Massport to use the RCC, to pay Massport any

Customer Facility Fees, Concession Fees, CATS Fees, or Facility Access Charges, to provide

assurances to Massport concerning a minimum standard of service or insurance coverage for its

operations, or to assure Massport that it is paying applicable taxes and fees for its business.

52. On information and belief, Turo has failed to pay applicable state and local taxes

and fees, including the $10.00 per transaction Convention Center Fee, the $0.60 per transaction

fee to the City of Boston, or the $2.00 per transaction Municipal Police Training Fee.

14
 53. As Turo’s operations have grown, so have the negative impacts to Logan. For

example, customers dropping off and picking up cars curbside have contributed to increased

congestion on Logan’s roadways and at the terminals.

54. Other rental car companies that operate at Logan under a Rental Car Agreement

have also been adversely affected by Turo’s, RMG’s and the John Doe Defendants’ ongoing,

unpermitted operations. Each of the car rental companies lawfully operating at Logan is required

to abide by all the provisions of the Rental Car Agreement, including the requirement that all

rental car businesses operate out of the RCC and use the CATS, and the requirement to pay the

fees and taxes for the privilege of operating at Logan that, to date, Turo has ignored. Thus, Turo,

RMG and the John Doe Defendants are operating at a significant advantage relative to their

competition. The defendants do not pay the fees and charges assessed to their competitors, and

they offer their customers pickup at terminal curbsides, parking lots or other locations which

their competitors are unable to access.

COUNT I
(Violation of Massport Regulations – All Defendants)

55. Massport adopts by reference the allegations in ¶¶ 1-54, above.

56. Massport regulations prohibit Turo, RMG, and the John Doe Defendants from

carrying on any commercial activity at Logan “unless duly authorized by the Executive

Director.” 740 CMR 21.04(1).

57. Massport regulations also prohibit the solicitation or transaction of any “car rental

business at Logan Airport except as authorized pursuant to a current and valid agreement

specifically permitting such activities.” 740 CMR 23.08(1)(b).

15
 58. Despite multiple notices, Turo has not obtained authorization to operate at Logan,

and has failed to respond to Massport’s most recent demand that it cease commercial operations

at Logan.

59. Neither Turo, RMG, nor the John Doe Defendants have been authorized to carry

on a car rental business or any commercial activity at Logan.

60. Massport has suffered, and continues to suffer, harm as a result of the defendants’

violation of 740 CMR 21.04(1)(b) and 740 CMR 23.08(1)(b) through lost revenue, inability to

control curb and roadway congestion, and diminished ability to ensure the safety of those

travelling on its roadways by, for example, ensuring that the vehicles rented by Turo, RMG and

the John Doe Defendants meet specified standards or that the defendants have adequate

insurance coverage for their business activities.

61. The defendants’ violation of 740 CMR 21 and 740 CMR 23.08(1)(b) also harms

the general public, as well as the rental car companies operating lawfully at Logan. Turo’s

refusal to pay any fees to Massport, or the surcharge for the Convention Center, the City of

Boston, or the Municipal Police Training Fee, as well as Turo’s failure to abide by various

operating rules, such as use of the CATS, has given it an unfair competitive advantage over other

rental car companies operating at Logan. Moreover, Turo’s disregard for the requirements that

apply to all other rental car companies increases delay and congestion at the terminal curbs and

Logan’s roadways, and poses risks to passengers travelling at or through Logan.

COUNT II
(Trespass – All Defendants)

62. Massport adopts by reference the allegations in ¶¶ 1-61, above.

63. Massport is in possession of the roadways, terminal curbs and other spaces at

Logan used by Turo, RMG, and the John Doe Defendants.

16
 64. Turo, RMG, and the John Doe Defendants have not received authorization to

conduct any commercial activity at Logan.

65. Massport has demanded that Turo cease and desist its conduct of advertising

vehicles available to rent from Logan, and of facilitating rentals by RMG and the John Doe

Defendants.

66. Despite these demands, Turo, RMG, and the John Doe Defendants continue to

trespass on Massport’s property.

67. As a result of the defendants’ trespass, Massport has suffered monetary and non-

monetary damages.

COUNT III
(Aiding and Abetting Trespass – Turo)

68. Massport adopts by reference the allegations in ¶¶ 1-67, above.

69. RMG and the John Doe Defendants are committing the tort of trespass by

conducting their car rental businesses at Logan without authorization from Massport.

70. Turo, at all material times, was and is aware of the prohibitions against

unauthorized car rental businesses at Logan, and was and is aware that RMG and the John Doe

Defendants are committing the tort of trespass at Logan.

71. Turo, by creating and operating its website, and by facilitating the rental of

vehicles owned by RMG and the John Doe Defendants, is actively participating in or

substantially assisting in the commission of the tort of trespass by RMG and the John Doe

Defendants.

72. Turo has benefitted financially from the commission of the tort of trespass by

RMG and the John Doe Defendants.

17
 73. As a result of Turo’s actions in aiding and abetting trespass by RMG and the John

Doe Defendants, Massport has suffered monetary and non-monetary damages.

COUNT IV
(Unjust Enrichment – All Defendants)

74. Massport adopts by reference the allegations in ¶¶ 1-73, above.

75. Turo, RMG, and the John Doe Defendants trespass at Logan, or aid and abet

trespass in order to conduct commercial activity there.

76. Those who rent a car from Turo’s website pay Turo, and Turo then remits a

portion of that payment to the vehicle owners.

77. Turo advertises to renters that they can pick up their rental cars at Logan, and

imposes an additional charge for them to do so.

78. Neither Turo, nor RMG, nor the John Doe Defendants pay to Massport the

Customer Facility Fee for the RCC, the Concession Fee, the CATS Fee or the RCC Facility

Access Charge. Nor do they pay the surcharge for the Convention Center, the City of Boston

tax, or the Municipal Police Training Fee. In addition to depriving Massport, the Convention

Center, the City of Boston, and the Municipal Police Training Fund of revenue, this puts Turo,

RMG, and the John Doe Defendants at an unfair competitive advantage relative to other car

rental services operating at Logan.

79. Turo, RMG, and the John Doe Defendants have been unjustly enriched by their

trespass or aiding and abetting trespass at Logan in violation of Massport’s rights, and by their

refusal to pay applicable fees and abide by applicable rules.

80. As a result of the defendants’ trespass or aiding and abetting trespass at Logan,

Turo, RMG, and the John Doe Defendants have been unjustly enriched, and the defendants are

required to disgorge to Massport all profits earned by their unlawful conduct.

18
 COUNT V
(Declaratory Judgment – All Defendants)

81. Massport adopts by reference the allegations in ¶¶ 1-80, above.

82. Pursuant to G.L. c. 231A, § 1 et seq., an actual controversy has arisen between

Massport, Turo, RMG, and the John Doe Defendants concerning the defendants’ violation of 740

CMR 21.04(1)(b), 740 CMR 23.08(1)(b), their trespass on Massport property, and Turo’s aiding

and abetting of trespass on Massport’s property.

83. Massport is entitled to a declaration that Turo, RMG, and the John Doe

Defendants are operating car rental businesses at Logan in violation of 740 CMR 21.04(1)(b) and

740 CMR 23.08(1)(b), that this operation constitutes a trespass on Massport’s property, and that

Turo has aided and abetted trespass on Massport’s property.

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Massport requests that this Court:

1. declare that Turo, RMG and the John Doe Defendants are in violation of 740

CMR 21.04(1)(b) and 740 CMR 23.08(1)(b), and are trespassing on Massport’s

property at Logan, and that Turo is aiding and abetting the trespass of RMG and

the John Doe Defendants at Logan;

2. enter preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering Turo, RMG, and the John

Doe Defendants to immediately cease and desist from any commercial operations

at Logan without first obtaining due authorization from Massport;

3. award damages to Massport for violations of 740 CMR 21.04(1)(b) and 740 CMR

23.08(1)(b), trespass, aiding and abetting trespass, and unjust enrichment; and

19
 4. grant such other relief to Massport as the Court deems just and proper.

MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY,

By its attorneys,

David S. Mackey (BBO #542277)

dmackey@andersonkreiger.com
Christina S. Marshall (BBO #688348)
cmarshall@andersonkreiger.com
Paul M. Kominers (BBO #703581)
pkominers@andersonkreiger.com
ANDERSON & KREIGER LLP
50 Milk, 21st Floor
Boston, MA 02109
617-621-6500
Dated: June 3, 2019

20
 VERIFICATION

I, Salvatore Amico, the Aviation Business General Manager at the Massachusetts Port
Authority, hereby say and depose that I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and hereby
verify that the factual allegations set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information, and belief. Allegations which are not based on my personal knowledge
are based upon information and documents provided to me.

Salvatore Amico
Dated: May 2019

21