Authored By: Rob Mohr
In Oklahoma, Public Justice is representing Susan Parisi in Tenth Circuit Appellate court after falling victim to what the civil rights organization calls “a bait-and-switch” scheme involving window replacement company Renewal by Anderson, and fintech Greensky, LLC. In 2021, Parisi saw an advertisement from Renewal offering loans with zero down payment and zero interest or payments for two years to upgrade her windows. She met with a sales representative in her home, and remarked how the terms of the loan were a good match financially, considering her upcoming chemotherapy treatments.
The sales representative asked her to create a digital signature on his iPad and check various boxes to sign in other places on the “loan application.’ However, she was signing an application for a completely different loan than the one she saw in the advertisement and discussed with the representative. This new loan was a high interest loan with payments starting 6 months from signing. Furthermore, because of Greensky’s “shopping pass” system, Renewal was able to accept the loan on Parisi’s behalf and receive the funds.
The notification that Renewal had received the funds from the loan was the first communication she received about the loan after meeting with the representative. The representative told her she would receive official documents on the loan in the mail. Parisi believed this would be her opportunity to review the terms of the loan before accepting it. Instead, they were sent by email and ended up in her spam inbox.
After discovering the truth of her lending situation, Parisi began pushing back against Greensky to cancel the loan. They eventually relented after almost a year, but Parisi had already accumulated a year’s worth of late fees and a balance on her credit report. Additionally, Renewal never attempted to contact Parisi to replace her windows, despite accepting the money from the loan.
Parisi filed a class action lawsuit against both companies in Oklahoma court. They responded by motioning to compel arbitration, using a clause in the “loan application” Parisi signed with the sales representative. This first motion to compel was dismissed, citing the ambiguity around Parisi’s knowledge of the agreement she signed. Public Justice in tandem with two other firms represent Parisi on appeal, and submitted her appellate brief on August 7th.
Thanks to Public Justice and their allies for fighting against systemic threats like corporate corruption, environmental polluters, and assaults on civil rights and liberties. If you want to financially support Public Justice and help them continue their important work, click here to visit their website.
