Given that KitSplit doesn't even disable the account of known thieves, it seems pretty clearly a case of malice (or, more accurately, greed, which in this case has the same net effect), not incompetence.
Not so. Thieves aren't stupid. They try a few times to figure out the system, then steal the identity of someone else (who is legit and passes fraud and credit checks) to do the actual theft.
The portability of the gear, combined with it's high resale value, means rentals will never work for an online business.
If the thieves have access to a local, legit person's CC, identity, and phone, then yes, you can't really stop them from stealing.
How can a a theif fake an interview?
It's not supposed to be an excuse for anything. The GP asked why they didn't take a deposit and my response was to argue why that's pointless.
Only allow renters to bypass this process for a new card if they have an established and positive rental record.
It's more likely KickSplit doesn't want to introduce friction for potential renters. $3,500 is a large deposit for someone who just wants to pay $75 rent on a few hours of use.
So probably ~30% of face value.
You get to read claims and promises how safe you'll be on their web site.
Their fees certainly aren't going towards liability insurance or fraud detection, so what are they doing with those fees?
I bet the fraud rate at KitSplit is going to go up after this post. Now you have a list of people that will wake up at 7am to hand over $4k of gear to you, knowing that KitSplit won't do anything and neither will law enforcement. Just remember to cancel your credit card and you'll make a quick $2k!
In all seriousness, if KitSplit wanted to stop this just charge renters a hefty deposit (the approximate cost of resell) and it should nip this in the bud. Obviously, someone in their "Growth" team will point out that this will hurt their KPIs and their VCs might not like it, so they won't do it.