In regard to any loan transaction that is alleged to be in violation of subsection (a) of Code Section 16-17-2, the trial court shall be authorized to review the terms of the transaction in their entirety in order to determine if there has been any contrivance, device, or scheme used by the lender in order to avoid the provisions of subsection (a) of Code Section 16-17-2. The trial court shall not be bound in making such determination by the parol evidence rule or by any written contract but shall be authorized to determine exactly whether the loan transaction includes the use of a scheme, device, or contrivance and whether in reality the loan is in violation of the provisions of subsection (a) of Code Section 16-17-2 based upon the facts and evidence relating to that transaction and similar transactions being made in the State of Georgia. If any entity involved in soliciting or facilitating the making of payday loans purports to be acting as an agent of a bank or thrift, then the court shall be authorized to determine whether the entity claiming to act as agent is in fact the lender. Such entity shall be presumed to be the lender if, under the totality of the circumstances, it holds, acquires, or maintains a predominant economic interest in the revenues generated by the loan. Furthermore, the trial court shall further be authorized to investigate all transactions involving gift cards, telephone cards, the sale of goods or services, computer services, or the like which may be tied to such loan transactions and are an integral part thereof in order to determine whether any such transaction is in fact a contrivance, scheme, or device used by the payday lender in order to evade the provisions of subsection (a) of Code Section 16-17-2.