HARRISBURG — A home financing firm offered its customers Amazon gift cards if they submitted testimony to a Pennsylvania House committee ahead of a hearing on a bill the company opposed.
The offer, made in a February email by Palo Alto-based company Point to its users and viewed by Spotlight PA, has upset the committee’s legislators, who argue it calls into question the firm's argument.
“It's an outrageous corruption of our legislative process to offer a financial inducement for testimony, and on top of that, to not disclose it,” said state Rep. Arvind Venkat (D., Allegheny), who is sponsoring legislation to regulate the firm and its products.
State Rep. Tim Twardzik (R., Schuylkill), a co-sponsor of the proposal, added in his own comments Wednesday that the offer was “pay to play.”
Pennsylvania has lax ethics laws overall. And the appearance of paid, professional lobbyists before lawmakers is a constitutionally protected and normal part of the legislative process at all levels of government.
But lobbyists, Venkat noted, must disclose who pays them. And Point is not yet registered to lobby the General Assembly, according to state records. The customers, whose testimony was included within a packet of meeting materials, only present themselves as citizens and homeowners and do not reference the payments.
Venkat strongly criticized the tactic.
“The only way that the industry seems to be able to get people to say something nice about it is to offer a financial inducement, and they conveniently have decided not to reveal that to my colleagues and me — who have the responsibility to weigh in a deliberative fashion testimony before us,” Venkat added. “So it calls into question their credibility, and it really raises questions about the product.”
Matthew Windsor, deputy general counsel for Point, confirmed the email Wednesday morning when asked about the gift card deal in the hearing of the state House Commerce Committee.
He said the payments were a means of quickly collecting testimony for the hearing, adding that "we did not screen anything.”
Point’s business model is to provide homeowners in need of cash with a lump sum payment using their house as collateral.
But rather than paying the loan back gradually, the homeowner remunerates the lender in another lump sum — calculated based on a number of factors — when they sell their home or if the homeowner decides to end the contract. These payments can end up being higher than the initial loan.
Point sent the gift card offer in a Feb. 24 email with the subject line “Last chance: share your story to protect HEI access.”
“Regulatory action in Pennsylvania could impact our ability to fund Home Equity Investments (HEIs) in your state,” Point’s email said. “You can help protect HEIs by submitting a written testimonial. Below is a template — just personalize it with your experience and send.”
Among the prompts were: “I was looking for funds to: [Insert your financial goal]”; “Other options weren’t a good fit for me because: [Explain why traditional loans, credit cards, or other solutions didn’t work]”; and “My HEI has given me: [Share how having access to HEI funds has helped you achieve your goals or improved your situation].”
If submitted, the sender would receive a $50 Amazon gift card “as a thank-you for your time and support.”
All told, 23 citizen emails opposing Venkat’s bill were included in a committee testimony packet viewed by Spotlight PA. They include stories of individuals using equity investments to pay for home repairs, college tuition, property taxes, and credit card debt; 10 directly quote Point’s prompts.
Costs are unknown by design
On the company’s website, Point says its products allow homeowners to “unlock your home equity with no monthly payments, no income requirements, and no need for perfect credit.”
Unlike a mortgage, in which the total value is known up-front thanks to its fixed interest rate over a fixed time period, the amount a homeowner pays back to Point after they get their initial lump sum is unknown.
A sample contract from the industry’s trade group that was included in their legislative testimony stipulated that the return for one of these lending firms would be a higher percentage of the home sale value than it initially paid to the homeowner. On top of that, the return is designed to shift based on how the home’s value changes.
Combined with fees baked into the contract, the homeowner’s closing payment can end up being higher than the initial loan, even if the home’s value decreases. And if a recipient fails to pay back what they owe in full, the firm can foreclose.
Point and the trade organization representing similar lenders argue they provide flexibility to homeowners who want to access their home equity for cash without adding additional monthly payments.
“I'm sure they sound like new concepts to you,” said Lee Kaplan, general counsel of Unlock Technologies, another lender. But “there's nothing inherently wrong with those things. Those are simply … how we generate return. That's how we price the contract, in the same way that there's nothing wrong with the interest rate on the loan.”
However, federal and state regulators have questioned if consumers are aware of the risks that come with this product.
A 2025 report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that reviewed complaints against the industry found homeowners “felt frustrated or even misled about various aspects of home equity contracts—including confusion about the financing terms, surprise at the size of the repayment amounts, disputes about appraisal values, difficulty with refinancing due to the existence of the home equity contract, and frustration that they felt their only option to get out of the contract was to sell their home.”
In 2020, Pennsylvania regulators ruled the product falls outside the state consumer protection law covering lending, according to a letter the industry shared with legislators. As introduced, Venkat’s bill would place the industry under this existing law, which sets maximum interest rates, transparency requirements, and penalties for breaking any requirements.
Industry members told lawmakers such regulations would effectively ban their product from Pennsylvania, and argued for a chance to design different rules. Venkat told Spotlight PA that a ban isn’t his intent, and that he thinks their claim is overstated.
“The question that I would ask the coalition is — ‘Have you stopped selling these products in those states [with stricter laws]?’” he said. “And the answer to that, as far as I know, is no.”
As for working with the industry to develop state rules more to its liking, Venkat said its tactics haven’t won any favors.
“Their efforts on this legislation makes me very skeptical of their motivations in terms of coming to an agreement that would be to the benefit of Pennsylvanians,” he said.