Pet Leasing Lawsuit in the News

Pet leasing is fundamentally unfair and deceptive, and our suit against this terrible practice is getting a lot of media attention: The CT Law Tribune; The Day (New London); and The Norwich Bulletin. Other outlets have expressed interest as well, which is great because we want to make people aware of this practice so they can avoid being stuck in this situation. If you or someone you know was taken advantage of in a similar situation with a pet lease please contact me.

First Lawsuit Filed in Connecticut Against Pet Leasing

The ASPCA has called pet leasing a predatory practice aimed at people who cannot afford a companion animal.  A new lawsuit in Connecticut claims pet leasing is an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.  The suit was brought on behalf of a 20-year-old Norwich woman who thought she was buying a puppy with a payment plan, only to find out later that she actually leased the dog and is not the owner.  

The suit, filed in New London Superior Court, is known as Christina Diskin v. The Dog House I, Inc.; My Pet Funding, LLC; and Monterey Financial Services, LLC.   The Dog House offers dogs for sale and adoption, and advertising on its website encourages consumers to "take advantage of our new financing program Wags.  Bring your puppy home today with affordable monthly payments." No where does the store say anything about "leasing" an animal.

On July 14, 2018, Ms. Diskin went to the Dog House and fell in love with a 13-week old puggle, which was listed for sale for $1,200.00 (the fair market value of a puggle is only $300-$600).  The store offered and encouraged her to apply for financing, which was done online via computer, so that she could make monthly payments. 

The sales rep told Ms. Diskin that she was approved for $3,000.  She agreed to buy the dog and pet supplies for a total price of $1,340, with a down payment of $75.  She understood that she was buying the puppy and signed a paper document called a “New Ownership Agreement.”  But she electronically signed other documents on the computer including a lease agreement.  No one told her it was a lease agreement, no one printed the documents or went over the terms, including the payments, interest rate, or the fact that she actually was not an owner of the dog, and she was not given time to read or understand the lease on the computer.  The lease was emailed to her after the transaction.

The lease states that she is NOT the owner of the dog, contrary to the New Ownership Agreement that she signed in the store.  The lease is unclear, deceptive and confusing on its face in many ways, including the total value of the dog and supplies: one page states “the total value of the product(s), capitalized cost, you are leasing is $1,425.09,” but another page says the agreed upon value of the puppy is $1,200 and the puppy kit $140.  The interest rate, which is not disclosed in the document, is in excess of 100%, and is unconscionable and unjustifiable under any circumstances.  The lease states that the total amount she will pay by the end is $3,575.97 ($49.99 plus 23 payments of $153.30) and that she must pay an additional purchase price of $213.76 plus additional fees and taxes.  The total price to own the dog is not disclosed but is in excess of $3,789.73.

The suit alleges that the defendants committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b et seq., in one or more of the following respects, in that they: sold a dog for a price that far exceeded the fair market value of the animal;  sold overpriced dogs to unsophisticated buyers who could not afford them, and locked them into leases with highly unfavorable terms, further increasing the cost of the animal; offered “financing” to unsophisticated buyers without informing them that the contract was actually a lease; arranged to have the plaintiff finance the cost of $1,425.09 even though the purchase price of the puppy and supplies was only $1,340.00; failed to fully disclose or explain the terms of the lease including the interest rate; duped buyers into long-term leases with an unconscionable rate of interest; failed to explain that the effective interest rate was over 100%; Failed to disclose the full purchase price of the dog; failed to explain that if she missed a payment or otherwise defaulted she would be liable for additional fees and penalties and could be forced to surrender the dog; and violated the Consumer Leasing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1667a.

Pet leasing is banned in California, Nevada and New York, and other states have considered prohibiting the practice as well.  It is unfair to both consumers and the animals.  If a consumer misses a payment they can be forced to surrender their pet in addition to incurring financial penalties.  Pet leasing is an inherently harmful business practice that offends public policy and should be unlawful in the State of Connecticut. The suit seeks damages and a declaration that the lease is void as against public policy, and an injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing this lease and any other pet leases in CT. For more information, or if you were also tricked into signing a pet lease, please contact Attorney Camassar.