Best Buy Class Action Says 0% Interest Promotions are a Trap

A Michigan woman says a Best Buy “0% interest” promotion is designed to trick consumers into getting hit with unexpected retroactive interest charges.

According to plaintiff Ruth Stinson, Best Buy lures consumers with an offer of “0% interest” financing for a limited promotional period.

What consumers aren’t adequately notified about, Stinson claims, is that any unpaid balance remaining at the end of the promotional period triggers a lump-sum, retroactive interest charge based on the full purchase price for the entire promotional period.

“Even if a consumer falls just a few dollars short of full repayment, she is charged interest as if she had never made any payments to Best Buy,” the Best Buy class action lawsuit reads.

The company backs this promotion up with high-pressure sales tactics, according to this Best Buy class action lawsuit. Sales personnel are allegedly offered extra compensation for signing up customers for a Best Buy credit account. In-store advertisements heavily promote the “0% interest” financing period, without mentioning the charge for retroactive interest that could follow it, according to Stinson.

She says she was lured by this promotion in October 2015, when she financed a $947.82 purchase under a Best Buy “0% interest” payment plan. The Best Buy salesperson allegedly told her she would get 18 months of financing at “0% interest” but did not mention the prospect of a lump-sum interest payment at the end of that period.

The credit application and approval process only took about five minutes, she says. At no point during that process was she alerted to the consequences of failing to pay off the entire balance during the promotional period.

Despite paying off a significant portion of the balance on her purchase, Stinson says that at the end of the “0% interest” promotional period she was hit with an interest charge of $309.54.

As a result of promotions like these, consumers are drawn by the prospect of a no-interest purchase without understanding the consequences of failing to pay them off on time, Stinson argues. She cites a consumer survey in which only 28 percent of those surveyed correctly understood how interest is charged under “no interest if paid in full” store-brand credit card terms.

Best Buy relies on that misunderstanding to get customers to pay large interest charges when they expected to pay none, Stinson claims.

Stinson is proposing to represent a plaintiff Class that would cover all U.S. persons who, within the applicable statutory limitations period, made a purchase from Best Buy using store-issued credit and were later hit with a retroactive, lump-sum interest charge.

She is asking the court for an injunction barring Best Buy from continuing the promotion at issue. She also seeks an award of actual, punitive and exemplary damages, restitution and disgorgement of related revenues, and court costs and attorneys’ fees, all with pre- and post-judgment interest.

Stinson’s attorneys are Melissa S. Weiner and Christopher J. Moreland of Halunen Law, Jeffrey D. Kaliel of Kaliel PLLC, and Jeff Ostrow and Scott Edelsberg of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert.

The Best Buy 0% Interest Financing Class Action Lawsuit is Stinson v. Best Buy Co. Inc., Case No. 0:18-cv-00295-JNE-FLN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.