Missouri Joins $664 Million Snap Finance Settlement: 3,707 Lease-to-Own Customers Owe Nothing More

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway announced on October 28, 2026 that Snap Finance will cancel $6,979,354 in remaining lease payments owed by 3,707 Missourians. The settlement is a useful occasion to review what Missouri’s Rental-Purchase Agreement Law requires of every lease-to-own offer made at a checkout counter.

Missouri is one of 17 states in a settlement with Snap Finance, a company that offers lease-to-own financing through retailers rather than through its own stores. The Iowa Attorney General, who led the coalition with Nebraska, announced the settlement on October 21. Missouri’s announcement followed on October 28. Across all settling states, lease forgiveness totals $662,102,518. Snap is also paying $2,750,000 to the states, and Missouri’s share of that payment, $150,000, goes to the state’s Merchandising Practices Revolving Fund.

Both releases describe the states’ concerns as the product of an investigation into alleged violations of consumer protection laws. Snap cooperated with that investigation and agreed to change several business practices. Neither release describes a trial or a court finding of liability. This article summarizes what was announced, explains how Missouri law treats lease-to-own transactions, and outlines practical steps for consumers and for the retailers that offer these products.

What the states say went wrong

According to the Missouri and Iowa releases, the states found that Snap used misleading disclosures about the nature of its leasing arrangements, did not allow customers to view the full terms of their contracts, and left customers with serious communication problems when they tried to return products. The states reported that some customers believed they were entering agreements with short pay-back windows of 100 days or fewer, but instead entered long-term contracts that ended up costing more. Customers were also told that leasing a product and making on-time payments could raise their credit scores, which, according to the states, was not the case.

The Iowa release adds that the states examined potential debt collection practices and what it described as a potentially deceptive process for returning products and terminating leases.

The business-practice changes Snap agreed to

How a lease-to-own transaction differs from a loan

As the releases describe Snap’s model, when a shopper selects the lease-to-own option at a participating store, Snap buys the merchandise from the retailer, holds title to it, and leases it to the customer until the customer pays the full cost of the lease. The customer has the use of the item but does not own it until the final payment. The practical consequence is that the true price of the item is the total of all lease payments, which can be considerably more than the price on the shelf tag.

Missouri regulates these transactions in sections 407.660 to 407.665 RSMo, known as the Rental-Purchase Agreement Law and enacted in 1988. Section 407.661(6) defines a rental-purchase agreement as an agreement for the use of merchandise for personal, family, or household purposes, for an initial period of four months or less, that is automatically renewable with each payment and that permits the consumer to become the owner. The statute provides that such an agreement is not to be treated as a credit sale under the federal Truth in Lending Act or as a consumer lease under federal regulations. Whether a particular agreement fits the Missouri definition depends on its terms.

What Missouri law requires a rental-purchase agreement to disclose

Under section 407.662, a rental-purchase agreement must be a written statement that constitutes the entire agreement, with all amounts stated in numerical figures. The statute then requires the following disclosures in 10-point boldface type.

The same section prohibits certain terms outright. A Missouri rental-purchase agreement may not require a confession of judgment, authorize a breach of the peace during repossession, waive the consumer’s defenses or counterclaims, require the consumer to buy insurance from the merchant, impose a late charge greater than five dollars for each payment in default, require a final payment larger than a regular periodic payment in order to acquire ownership, or require rental payments greater than the total amount needed to acquire ownership.

Advertising is addressed in section 407.663. An advertisement that states a payment amount, or the right to acquire ownership of a particular item, must clearly and conspicuously state that the transaction is a rental-purchase agreement, the total amount and number of payments needed to acquire ownership, and that the consumer does not own the merchandise until all payments are made. Without suggesting how a court would apply section 407.663 to any particular advertisement, the slogans the settlement now bars illustrate the gap the statute is meant to close between a headline offer and the total cost.

“Consumers have a right to see and understand the full terms of any agreement before they commit to it.”

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, October 28, 2026

Reinstatement, termination and returning the property

Missouri gives lease-to-own customers a limited right to recover from missed payments. Under section 407.664, a consumer who fails to make timely payments may reinstate the original agreement, without losing rights or options already acquired, within three rental terms after the last term for which a timely payment was made, provided the consumer surrenders the property when the merchant asks for it. Before reinstating, the merchant may require payment of unpaid rent, delinquency charges, a reinstatement fee of no more than five dollars, and a delivery charge if redelivery is necessary. On reinstatement, the merchant must provide either the same property or substitute property of comparable quality and condition.

The statute also requires every agreement to state the conditions under which the consumer may terminate. The settlement’s provisions on clear disclosure of the termination right, practical methods of returning property, and pausing payments while a termination request is processed are directed at the problems the states described in this area.

How these protections are enforced in Missouri

The Rental-Purchase Agreement Law connects directly to the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). Under section 407.665, a violation of sections 407.660 to 407.664 is deemed a violation of section 407.020, and the Attorney General has the same enforcement powers as under the rest of the MMPA. The statute allows a merchant to correct a noncompliant agreement within ten days after it is signed, in which case no penalty applies under the chapter. Section 407.665 also states that the rental-purchase provisions are not exclusive and do not bar civil claims against a person who acquired money or property through a practice they prohibit.

Section 407.020 declares unlawful any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice, or concealment, suppression, or omission of a material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise in or from Missouri. Section 407.025 gives a private right of action to a person who purchases or leases merchandise primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result. Since the 2020 amendments, a private plaintiff must show that the plaintiff acted as a reasonable consumer would, that the challenged practice would cause a reasonable person to enter the transaction, and individual damages supported by sufficiently definitive and objective evidence. The court may, in its discretion, award punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and equitable relief, and the statute permits class actions when its requirements are met.

The $150,000 Missouri receives is not restitution to individual consumers. Under section 407.140, the Merchandising Practices Revolving Fund pays the Attorney General’s costs of investigating and enforcing the chapter and funds consumer education programs. The relief for consumers in this settlement is the cancellation of remaining lease balances.

Practical steps for Missouri consumers

• Compare the cash price with the total of payments. Missouri law requires both figures to be disclosed. The difference between them is the cost of leasing rather than buying.
• Read the entire agreement before signing, including when the offer is presented on a phone or tablet at checkout. Ask for a copy you can keep.
• Be cautious about credit-score claims. Ask in writing whether, and to which credit bureaus, payments are reported.
• Know your termination and reinstatement rights. If you return property, follow the written instructions and keep proof of the return.
• Keep records of the agreement, payment history, and every communication with the leasing company.
• Report problems. Consumers may file a complaint through the Attorney General’s online consumer complaint portal. Whether this settlement affects any individual claim depends on its terms, which an attorney can review with you.

Consumers who believe they lost money in a lease-to-own or other consumer transaction may wish to speak with counsel about a claim under the MMPA. The firm’s general litigation practice handles consumer disputes of this kind in Missouri courts.

What retailers that offer lease-to-own at checkout should consider

Many Missouri retailers offer lease-to-own options through third-party providers. Section 407.661(5) defines a “merchant” to include a person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly leases, offers to lease, or arranges for the leasing of merchandise under a rental-purchase agreement. The settlement also requires Snap to train its merchant partners and report on compliance for three years, which places renewed attention on how the option is presented at the point of sale.

Retailers should review how employees describe lease options, what signage and online checkout pages say, and whether any script relies on phrases like those the settlement now bars. Contracts with financing providers should allocate responsibility for disclosures and complaints. The firm’s business law practice reviews vendor agreements and customer-facing materials, and its business litigation practice defends and prosecutes MMPA claims when disputes arise.

This article is for educational purposes only and is not legal or tax advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Haake Law Group PC or Derek R. Haake. Laws change, and the summaries above may not reflect later amendments, court decisions, or the full terms of the settlement. Verify current law with the relevant agency and consult an attorney about your specific situation before acting.