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.
New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto in his dissent to the majority opinion.

Unquestionably, the ruling will limit consumer choices for people who would rather not incur large amounts of debt for the purchase of furniture, appliances, computers or other electronic products -- people for whom renting these products makes better financial or economic sense than buying them.
Christopher A. Korst, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Rent-A-Center

In a decision handed down today, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed an appellate court decision regarding rent to own agreements. The High Court held that rent-to-own contracts are subject to the New Jersey Retail Installment Sales Act (RISA), the interest rate cap in the criminal usury statute, and the Consumer Fraud Act.

Writing for the majority, Justice Long said:

"It is fair to say that Perez’s rent-to-own contracts are not a perfect fit with the language of the RISA statute. Thus, the Court’s obligation is to interpret that statute reasonably to serve its apparent legislative purpose. As such, the Court is satisfied that the language of RISA was intended to cover agreements like the ones between Rent-A-Center and Perez. The leases can be viewed as a form of conditional sale as that term is used in RISA. At the very least, Perez’s leases were instruments “similar” to conditional sales. Reference in RISA to “similar instruments” was intended to incorporate cleverly drafted agreements like this one so that “subtle distinctions” are not allowed to defeat the manifest purpose of the law."

Justice Rivera-Soto strongly dissented saying:

"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. Because a rent-to-own contract is not a “retail installment contract” under RISA, the provisions of RISA simply are inapplicable by their own terms. Further, because the criminal usury statute is not intended to apply to a time-price differential, that is, the difference between the cash price of an item and the cost to purchase that same item on credit, it similarly does not apply to rent-to-own contracts. Finally, because plaintiff’s individual and class Consumer Fraud Act claims are based on her RISA and criminal usury claims, those too should fail. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent."

Christopher A. Korst, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Rent-A-Center said of the ruling, "This is a surprising and disappointing outcome because the lower courts were so clear in their logic and unequivocal in their findings that neither the Retail Installment Sales Act nor the state's usury laws apply to rental-purchase transactions.

Korst added that Rent-A-Center will review the decision and assess what it means for the companies continued operation in New Jersey.

"Unquestionably, the ruling will limit consumer choices for people who would rather not incur large amounts of debt for the purchase of furniture, appliances, computers or other electronic products -- people for whom renting these products makes better financial or economic sense than buying them."