If you need furniture or appliances but don’t have the cash to buy them outright, you might be thinking about other payment options. If you do, pay attention to terms written in fine print that might have you paying much more than you thought.
In a proposed $175 million settlement, the FTC says Progressive Leasing, a company offering virtual rent-to-own payment plans out of retail stores, led people to believe they’d pay the cash or retail price for furniture and other items. Ads and salespeople promoting 90-day “same as cash” prices enticed people to buy from stores using Progressive Leasing as the form of payment. But, according to the FTC, people usually wound up paying much more than the ads and salespeople told them they would.
When shoppers asked questions — about other charges like the interest rate — the FTC says Progressive Leasing had trained sales associates to say there was no interest rate because the payment plan technically wasn’t a loan, leaving out the fact that there were, indeed, other types of additional charges. Once people signed up, Progressive automatically enrolled them in monthly payment plans that withdrew money from their bank accounts over 12 months. As a result, people typically paid about twice the retail price when they paid according to these plans.
Keep in mind that you may have more options than you think when buying big-ticket items. But if you come across ads and salespeople promoting low payments, zero interest, or other attractive terms, have them explain exactly what you’re signing up for. Always ask:
- How much the payments will be?
- How long and how much it will take to pay in full?
- Are there other fees or costs – including if you pay off early?
If you don’t get straight answers, walk away and tell the FTC.
It is your choice whether to submit a comment. If you do, you must create a user name, or we will not post your comment. The Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes this information collection for purposes of managing online comments. Comments and user names are part of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) public records system, and user names also are part of the FTC’s computer user records system. We may routinely use these records as described in the FTC’s Privacy Act system notices. For more information on how the FTC handles information that we collect, please read our privacy policy.
The purpose of this blog and its comments section is to inform readers about Federal Trade Commission activity, and share information to help them avoid, report, and recover from fraud, scams, and bad business practices. Your thoughts, ideas, and concerns are welcome, and we encourage comments. But keep in mind, this is a moderated blog. We review all comments before they are posted, and we won’t post comments that don’t comply with our commenting policy. We expect commenters to treat each other and the blog writers with respect.
We don't edit comments to remove objectionable content, so please ensure that your comment contains none of the above. The comments posted on this blog become part of the public domain. To protect your privacy and the privacy of other people, please do not include personal information. Opinions in comments that appear in this blog belong to the individuals who expressed them. They do not belong to or represent views of the Federal Trade Commission.
In reply to The real problem is the by dsbosley
In reply to Well said! by Victoria
In reply to Well said! by Victoria
In reply to The real problem is the by dsbosley
In reply to The real problem is the by dsbosley
In reply to The real problem is the by dsbosley
In reply to The real problem is the by dsbosley
In reply to I thank you for being the by Paul
In reply to "If you don’t get straight by azure
Read the press release to learn more about the FTC case and details of the proposed $175 million settlement.