[af_vet_1981]

It only takes a few sentences in the article to determine it
1) The explicit company policy saying you may be required to provide a passport.
2) The husband saying he didn’t provide one initially (until later being denied rental for being rude) and the wife saying how unreasonable it is that they wouldn’t take the license alone.

You built a sand castle on the assumption that may meant shall, which is patently false. Avis has apologized to their loyal customer because his perception of events was rational and their policy was inconsistent. The initial handling of the event by Avis was flawed.

[Mount Athos]

Hey, the official company policy says I may be required to show a passport in addition to my country driver’s license.

This agent is asking for a passport when one two days ago didn’t.

It must be because of bigotry! I will run to the press!

Nope, my argument doesn’t depend on may being the same as shall. If anything the word “may” just proves further that the company didn’t do anything wrong.
It is fair warning that you may be asked for a passport one time and not another.

The only thing the company “apologized” for is showing how asking for it one time and not another could cause customer confusion.

I might be confused too, question it, then check the company policy and see oh yeah that request is legit —

instead of running to the press like a maniac making wild unfair claims of discrimination and bigotry.