Progressive Leasing: The Rent-to-Own Finance Arm That Charged Three Times Retail Price While Obscuring the True Cost of Ownership

Progressive Leasing LLC, a rent-to-own financing company that operates through partnerships with major electronics and appliance retailers, agreed to pay $175 million in consumer redress to settle charges that it failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose to consumers the total cost of completing a rent-to-own agreement — a total that investigators found was typically two to three times the retail price of the leased merchandise, a material fact that Progressive's marketing and point-of-sale disclosures systematically minimized in favor of emphasizing low weekly or biweekly payment amounts.DOCUMENTED

Rent-to-own arrangements are marketed to consumers who lack access to conventional retail financing — those with limited or damaged credit who cannot qualify for store credit cards or personal loans to purchase electronics, appliances, or furniture. The rent-to-own model allows these consumers to take possession of merchandise immediately in exchange for recurring payments, with the option to own the item outright after completing a defined payment schedule. The model's consumer protection concern is that the total cost of ownership under the completed lease substantially exceeds the retail price in ways that consumers may not understand when focusing on the periodic payment amount.REVIEWED

The Cost of Rent-to-Own

A consumer who leases a $500 television through a rent-to-own arrangement with a total cost of ownership of $1,200 is paying $700 more than retail to own the same item. This effective cost of credit — the economic equivalent of borrowing the purchase price at a very high interest rate — is not typically expressed as an annual percentage rate in rent-to-own transactions, because these arrangements are legally structured as leases rather than credit transactions and are therefore not subject to the Truth in Lending Act's APR disclosure requirements in most states. The absence of a mandatory APR disclosure makes the total cost comparison more dependent on consumers reading and understanding the full contract terms.REVIEWED

Progressive's marketing at partner retail locations — displayed on retail shelving, in-store signage, and on the company's website — emphasized that consumers could take home merchandise for a low stated weekly amount, with the lease characterized as a flexible no-credit-required option. The total amount a consumer would pay to own the item was disclosed in contract documents, but investigators found that the disclosure was not given equivalent visual prominence to the weekly payment amount in the materials consumers encountered at the point of decision, creating a misleading impression about the relative cost of the rent-to-own option versus conventional retail purchase.DOCUMENTED

The Retail Partnership Context

Progressive's model involves embedding its rent-to-own financing option within conventional retail environments — major electronics and appliance chains — where consumers encounter it as one of several payment options alongside cash, credit card, and store financing. The retail context matters for consumer protection purposes because consumers who encounter rent-to-own financing at a major electronics retailer may not have the same understanding of the cost structure that they would in a standalone rent-to-own store, where the rent-to-own nature of all transactions is the store's defining characteristic. At a general retailer, the rent-to-own option can appear similar to conventional store financing to consumers who are not examining the full terms carefully.REVIEWED

The complaint describes consumer experiences in which individuals who selected Progressive's financing at a retail checkout discovered only later — when reviewing their contract or their payment history — that the total cost of ownership substantially exceeded what they had understood. Some consumers described being told by retail staff that Progressive was a financing option for purchasing the item, without understanding that it was a lease arrangement that would cost significantly more than the retail price even after all payments were completed.DOCUMENTED

Consumers who selected Progressive Leasing at retailer checkout often discovered only after months of payments that the total amount they would pay to own the item was several hundred dollars more than the item's retail price tag — a gap the point-of-sale materials had not made clear at the time of the transaction.

Settlement Terms and Consumer Refunds

The $175 million settlement — one of the largest consumer redress amounts in the rent-to-own sector — is to be distributed to consumers who entered Progressive Leasing agreements during the covered period. The settlement also requires Progressive to implement enhanced disclosures that present the total cost of ownership with equal or greater visual prominence than the periodic payment amount in all marketing materials and at the point of lease execution, and to clearly identify its product as a lease rather than a purchase financing arrangement in all consumer-facing communications.DOCUMENTED

Consumers who have active or recently completed Progressive Leasing agreements may be eligible for redress distributions. The settlement fund process will notify eligible consumers through available contact information; consumers who have moved or changed contact information since entering their lease should monitor the settlement administrator's website for claiming instructions. Consumers considering rent-to-own arrangements should always ask for the total cost of ownership — the sum of all payments required to own the item outright — and compare that total to the cash retail price of the same item before signing any lease agreement.REVIEWED

The Regulatory Gap in Rent-to-Own

The federal Truth in Lending Act covers credit transactions but does not automatically cover lease transactions — which is why rent-to-own arrangements have historically been able to operate without the APR disclosure requirements that credit transactions must meet. Many states have enacted specific rent-to-own disclosure laws that require lessors to disclose the total cost of ownership, the weekly or monthly payment, and the number of payments required to own the item, but the strength and enforcement of these requirements vary considerably by state. The FTC's action against Progressive reflects a determination to apply federal unfair and deceptive acts standards to rent-to-own practices that fall below the transparency consumers should be able to expect, even where specific statutory disclosure requirements do not directly apply. Consumer advocates have called for federal legislation establishing minimum disclosure standards for rent-to-own transactions comparable to the Truth in Lending Act's requirements for credit — a reform that would close the regulatory gap that has allowed the cost-of-ownership mismatch problem to persist.

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.