A N.J. Supreme Court ruling that Rent-a-Center must come under the ...

a lower court dismissal of Hilda Perez’s suit. She claimed RAC violated the N.J. Retail Installment Sales and Consumer Fraud Acts, which cap at 30% per year interest on installment deals. Perez alleged she paid $8,000 toward what was approximately 80% interest for furniture, a TV, a washing machine and other appliances. RAC was “clearly disappointed” by the ruling, “particularly in light of the 2 favorable decisions we previously received in this case,” said Speese. The decision could mean other consumers who paid more than 30% interest can claim refunds from RAC. The case goes to state court, where lawyers will try to have it certified as a class-action suit so other N.J. Rent-a-Center customers can seek refunds. The items Perez rented had a combined cash price of $9,301. But if she paid the weekly rates and purchase option payments, she would have spent $18,613 to own the items. Only one justice, Roberto Rivera- Soto, dissented in part. “If there is a need to regulate the rent-to-own industry -- a need certainly not demonstrated in this record -- then the source of that regulation should be legislative or executive action, and not a cobbled-together judicial cure for a perceived but unsubstantiated ill,” he wrote. Meanwhile, a final settlement calling for RAC to pay $1.75 million to 777 current and former account managers, inside/outside managers and executive assistant managers was approved in federal court in Ore., the chain said in a 10K filed with the SEC. The managers sued in 2005, alleging the chain violated Ore. law on overtime, lunch and work breaks and failed to pay all wages due the employees. RAC reserved $1.3 million in fiscal year ended Dec. 31 to fund a settlement subject to an April 21 final hearing. The suit began in Ore. Superior Court, Clark County. The 2001 class action involved 1,300 current and former employees.