There is a significant difference between "property destruction" and "not abiding by the terms of the contract". IMO this situation would fall under the latter, but watch the video in the linked article first to get the full context.
Facts based on the video:
- The vehicle in question was a loaner vehicle from an Audi dealership, so not a "true" rental in that sense.
- As with most loaner cars, these are offered as a convenience for the customer while their car is being serviced or repaired. In this case, her own car was in for a cooling system repair and had already been driving the loaner for a few days before noticing the camera.
- Not everyone immediately notices otherwise "obvious" things like this since, again, this was a loaner car that she was excited to experience. This is stated plainly in the video.
- There is an implication in the video that she was not informed about the camera. We don't know if she signed any paperwork that stated as much, since that info isn't given.
- She acknowledges on camera that, had she known about the camera, she would've happily paid $700 for a traditional rental.
There is some expectation of privacy when inside a vehicle, and that includes rental vehicles. Being recorded by a camera installed in a rental/loaner/whatever vehicle that is lent to you based on a contract, without being informed of said camera, is a massive invasion of privacy, no matter how you slice it.