To be frank there's nothing in the article that seems outrageous. The AI thing is just burying the lede; the point is accesible and transparent before-and-after images so that damage claims are more transparent.
For one, are fees "higher when renting vehicles from Hertz stores that use UVeye scanners, as opposed to those that don’t"?
Can a renter get "estimates of what different kinds of damage typically cost"?
(quotes from the article).
I'm pretty sure that want to use automated scanners for this because if they had human agent make the same claims, and charge $440 for that scuff, then there would be a blowup right away, and keeping employees willing to deal with that anger all the time is hard.
I'm pretty sure I've scuffed up a rental car like that, and didn't get dinged at all. It's a rental car, and normal wear-and-tear should be part of the regular depreciation.
The fees seem high for such a small blemish. Automated rule enforcing systems are very frustrating to hit. They usually enforce good rules, but overly strictly and often trend into gotchas that are intentionally exploitive. (Eg, red light cameras that have reduced yellow light times.) I doubt the savings of those fees being put into renters who do leave damage marks will be passed on to those who don't.