Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Contingencies

Contingencies

We, along with our subsidiaries, are party to various legal proceedings and governmental inquiries and investigations given the nature of our business. We regularly monitor developments related to these matters, determine whether a reserve is appropriate if the loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, and review the adequacy of our reserves for such matters on a quarterly basis. As a result, we do not have reserves for all matters with respect to which we may or will have future liability, and no assurance can be given that our reserves, when recorded, will be adequate to cover the full amount of any loss we may ultimately incur. In addition, certain of the matters described below involve demands for monetary relief and changes to our business practices that could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations were we to agree to them as part of a settlement or be subject to them following an adverse result in litigation. We cannot predict the ultimate resolution of our pending legal proceedings and governmental inquiries and investigations or other similar matters that may arise in the future given the nature of our business and the inherent uncertainty associated with legal proceedings and governmental inquiries and investigations, including those described below.

Unclaimed Property. We are subject to unclaimed property audits by states in the ordinary course of business. The property subject to review in the audit process includes unclaimed wages, vendor payments and customer refunds. State escheat laws generally require entities to report and remit abandoned and unclaimed property to the state. Failure to timely report and remit the property can result in assessments that could include interest and penalties, in addition to the payment of the escheat liability itself. We routinely remit escheat payments to states and believe we are in compliance with applicable escheat laws.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) Investigation. In October 2020, prior to the December 2020 execution of the definitive agreement to acquire Acima, Acima received a Civil Investigative Demand (the “CID”) from the CFPB requesting certain information, documents and data relating to Acima’s products, services and practices from January 1, 2015 forward. The stated purpose of the CID was to determine whether Acima extends credit, offers leases, or otherwise offers or provides a consumer financial product or service and whether Acima complies with certain consumer financial protection laws. After the original CID, the CFPB issued subsequent CIDs requesting further information, documents and testimony. Acima responded to all CIDs and cooperated with the CFPB throughout their investigation.

In May 2023, in accordance with the CFPB’s Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise (“NORA”) process, the CFPB staff notified Acima that the staff may recommend that the CFPB take legal action against Acima based on allegations that Acima violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010; the Truth in Lending Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z; the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation E; and the Fair Credit Reporting

Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation V, and seek remedies including restitution, disgorgement, damages, injunctive relief, and civil money penalties. In June 2023, Acima submitted its response to the NORA notice.

After the Company’s first quarter 2024 Form 10-Q filing, Acima was informed by the CFPB staff that the CFPB authorized “sue or settle” authority pursuant to the NORA process. The CFPB subsequently provided Acima with a settlement proposal. Although Acima engaged in discussions with the CFPB regarding its settlement demands, Acima’s efforts to negotiate a resolution were met with the CFPB’s threat of imminent commencement of litigation, refusal to meet with Acima in person to discuss a potential resolution, and what Acima believes are unsupportable demands.

As a result, on July 22, 2024, Acima filed a lawsuit against the CFPB in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Acima seeks to halt what it contends is the CFPB’s unauthorized attempt to expand its authority as limited by federal law and usurp the long-standing, comprehensive state regulatory framework governing the lease-to-own industry. Acima filed this action reluctantly, only after concluding in its judgment that the CFPB was not prepared to settle with Acima on acceptable terms. On July 26, 2024, the CFPB filed a lawsuit against Acima and its former founder in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleging violations of the consumer financial protection laws and regulations described above in connection with the CFPB’s May 2023 NORA notice. The CFPB’s lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, unspecified monetary relief and civil penalties and other relief. Acima intends to vigorously defend itself against the litigation.

We cannot provide any assurance that Acima’s litigation against the CFPB will be successful or that Acima will be successful in defending against the CFPB’s litigation, and that the CFPB’s ongoing regulatory efforts will not lead to the imposition of financial and other relief, and/or require changes to Acima’s business practices or operations that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or reputation.

In connection with our acquisition of Acima, $45 million of a $50 million initial holdback escrowed at the closing of the transaction remains available for fines, penalties or customer restitution paid in connection with a resolution of the CFPB matter, including an adverse litigation outcome. Although the CFPB’s complaint does not contain a specific monetary demand, the CFPB’s initial monetary settlement demand exceeded the remaining $45 million holdback by a substantial amount. Therefore, there can be no assurance that the remaining escrowed amount will be sufficient to address all covered losses that may ultimately be incurred for this matter. In addition, Acima expects to incur substantial legal and related expenses associated with this matter, which are not recoverable from the holdback amount.

Multi-State Attorneys’ General Investigation. In November 2021, Acima received a letter from the Nebraska Attorney General’s office stating that the Attorney General of Nebraska, along with a coalition of thirty-eight state Attorneys General, initiated a multi-state investigation into the business acts and practices of Acima and that a civil investigative demand(s) and/or subpoena(s) pursuant to respective state consumer protection laws will be forthcoming. Since receiving the letter, we have held multiple discussions with officials at the lead attorneys’ general offices and, based on those discussions, it is our understanding that the investigation is looking at business practices within the virtual lease-to-own industry and includes multiple companies and, as it relates to Acima, involves forty states and the District of Columbia. In April 2022, we received a request for information and documents, and produced various records in response to the request. In March 2024, the multi-state attorneys’ general group presented their findings and allegations from their investigation to Acima. In May 2024, Acima submitted its response to the multi-state attorneys’ general group’s presentation.

After the Company’s first quarter 2024 Form 10-Q filing, Acima received a settlement proposal from the multi-state attorneys’ general group. As of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, although we would not be willing to agree to the initial monetary demand which we believe is unsupportable or agree to a number of the other terms presented by the multi-state attorneys’ general group, we expect to continue to discuss the potential resolution of this matter and have not yet determined the monetary and other terms of our anticipated next response to the multi-state attorneys’ general group. We are currently unable to predict whether or on what terms, including the amount of a monetary payment and the nature of business practice changes, any settlement with the multi-state attorneys’ general group, or individual members of the group, can be achieved. If we are unable to reach agreement on terms acceptable to us and to the various states involved in the group, some or all of such states may commence legal proceedings against Acima. We cannot provide any assurance that any settlement or adverse result in litigation will not require a monetary payment and/or changes to Acima’s business practices or operations that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or reputation.

New York Attorney General Investigation. The New York Attorney General (the “NYAG”) issued a subpoena to our Acima subsidiary in January 2020, prior to our acquisition of Acima Holdings, seeking information with respect to various business practices in connection with Acima’s lease-to-own transactions. Acima received additional subpoenas from the NYAG in August 2021 and July 2023. Since receiving the subpoenas, we have cooperated with the NYAG in connection with its investigation. In March 2023, the NYAG provided Acima with a proposed assurance of discontinuance alleging violations of

certain consumer laws, seeking injunctive relief regarding certain business practices, and seeking payment of unspecified amounts for restitution and civil penalties. In April 2023, Acima submitted its response to the NYAG’s proposed assurance of discontinuance. In February 2024, Acima provided a settlement proposal to the NYAG. In March 2024, the NYAG presented Acima with an initial monetary demand for settlement purposes. We have also had discussions with the NYAG regarding their demands for injunctive relief regarding certain business practices. As of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, although we would not be willing to agree to the initial monetary demand which we believe is unsupportable or agree to a number of the other terms presented by the NYAG, we expect to continue to discuss the potential resolution of this matter with the NYAG to attempt to arrive at terms that would be acceptable to us and have submitted an updated proposal to the NYAG regarding the non-monetary terms, which the parties are presently focusing on addressing to determine if agreement can be reached prior to addressing the monetary terms. We are currently unable to predict whether or on what terms, including the amount of a monetary payment and the nature of business practice changes, any settlement with the NYAG can be achieved. If we are unable to reach agreement on terms acceptable to us and to the NYAG, the NYAG has indicated an intention to bring an action which is likely to include both the alleged violations and the requested relief in the NYAG’s proposed assurance of discontinuance. We cannot provide any assurance that any settlement or adverse result in litigation will not require a monetary payment and/or changes to Acima’s business practices or operations that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or reputation.

McBurnie Litigation. We are a defendant in a putative class action entitled McBurnie, et al. v. Acceptance Now, LLC, brought on behalf of individuals who entered into a rental purchase agreement with the Company’s Acceptance Now business in California and were charged a processing fee and/or an expedited fee. Plaintiffs allege that the fees they were charged were neither “reasonable” nor “actually incurred” in violation of the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act and other California state consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages pursuant to the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act; statutory damages pursuant to the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act; attorneys’ fees and costs; exemplary damages; and public injunctions for alleged violations of the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California unfair competition laws. The action is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In November 2022, the District Court denied our motion to compel arbitration, and in December 2022, we filed an interlocutory appeal of that denial with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, pending which the District Court proceedings were stayed. In March 2024, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s denial of our motion to compel arbitration and its finding that plaintiffs’ challenge to the processing fee was not moot, while remanding the action to the District Court to consider whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the expedited payment fee. Plaintiffs have since notified the District Court that they do not intend to pursue their claims regarding the expedited payment fee. In June 2024, we filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, appealing the decision from the Court of Appeals. At the same time, proceedings before the District Court have resumed and there is no longer a stay in place at the District Court. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this case. We are currently unable to predict the eventual timing or outcome of this litigation, including whether the U.S. Supreme Court will grant our petition for certiorari and, if so, the ultimate decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.