Yesterday, as expected, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected, without comment, a petition from Rent-A-Center to re-hear an important PIRG-backed New Jersey Supreme Court decision, Rent-A-Center v. Perez (previous blog), holding that predatory rent-to-own businesses were subject to New Jersey's 30% APR ceiling for criminal usury. Of course, the rent-to-own boys preposterously claimed that renting to own doesn't involve purchasing over time or ownership, even though a typical RTO contract is for 78 weekly payments and ends in ownership after the consumer pays 2-4 times the retail value of the television or refrigerator at interest rates of 100-300% APR. Yet, none of that extra cost of ownership is attributed by the rent-to-own boys' math to either interest or a finance charge. Wrong again, boys. Do the math.