Scroll to the second document below for a reply to the retailers that was filed on Sept. 9, 2013.

Furniture stores that advertise buying something now and paying for it later — with none of the interim interest charges associated with traditional credit — are being called on the carpet.

The Competition Bureau announced that it would be seeking an end to these promotions, due to the fact that customers of Leon’s and The Brick are expected to cough up some funds up front, which also raises the price of their purchases.

While the advertising may suggest not having to pay a cent at the time a big-ticket item is acquired, the independent Canadian enforcement agency has pointed to the fine print, which shows that deferring payment on a $1,500 sofa has nonetheless required forking over up to $350.

An action was filed with the Ontario Superior Court to end these promotions, along with refunds for customers who paid “so-called administrative or processing fees,” plus administrative monetary penalties to the recently-merged retail giant.

“The deferred payment plans offered by Leon’s and The Brick benefit consumers,” read the company statement that was swiftly issued in response. “Leon’s and The Brick deny the Commissioner’s allegations and will vigorously defend their position in the Court.

“As the matter is before the Court, Leon’s and The Brick will not comment further at this time.”

After the stores filed their defence, the bureau elaborated upon claims that consumers were given clear indications about the nature of the offers, as print and broadcast advertisements lacked an adequate disclaimer.

(The evidence produced by the Competition Bureau can be seen in the second of the documents embedded below.)

Leon’s was cleared by the Competition Bureau in March for its $700-million takeover of The Brick — a measure that was believed to be a preemptive strike against the arrival of Target in Canada along with growing foreign chains like Ikea.

But the Leon’s commercial from 1987 and The Brick spot from 2003 are a reminder that this practice has been employed across the country for a while.

Promises like these could soon become historical artifacts if the promotions are deemed too shady.

The original claim from July 9, 2013:

A reply from the Competition Bureau to the retailers filed on Sept. 9, 2013: