Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Given the nature of our businesses and the heavily regulated industries in which we operate, we, along with our subsidiaries, are party to various legal proceedings and governmental inquiries and investigations. Certain legal proceedings and governmental inquiries and investigations involving us or our subsidiaries are described below. In addition to the matters described below, we are also party to other legal proceedings and governmental inquiries and investigations involving us or our subsidiaries that we believe, based on our current knowledge, will not have a material adverse effect on our business or our consolidated results of operations, financial condition or liquidity, including arbitrations, litigation, putative class actions and other matters alleging various types of claims, including those based on consumer regulatory, contract, labor and employment and other alleged claims. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in such matters, including the fact that some pending legal proceedings are at preliminary stages or seek an indeterminate amount of damages, penalties, fines or other relief, it is possible that the outcome of one or more legal proceedings could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations. We regularly monitor developments related to our legal proceedings and governmental inquiries and investigations, 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 these matters 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. At June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, we had estimated legal accruals of $52.4 million and $20.7 million, respectively, included in accrued liabilities in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet for pending legal and regulatory matters for which we believe losses are probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. However, as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, excluding the subsequent update for the McBurnie litigation provided below, we cannot predict the ultimate resolution of our pending legal proceedings, governmental inquiries and investigations (which include, but are not limited to, the matters discussed below) and, therefore, are unable to estimate a range of losses related to these matters that may be reasonably possible to occur. In addition to our estimated legal accruals, as of June 30, 2025 we have incurred legal and other related expenses, and expect to incur substantial additional legal and related expenses, associated with the litigation and investigations discussed below and other pending legal matters. 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. 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 and attended meetings with officials at many of the applicable attorneys’ general offices, including members of the Executive Committee, which is leading the negotiations on behalf of the multistate group (the “Multistate”). Based on our engagement with the Multistate, it is our understanding that the investigation involves forty states. The District of Columbia was formerly a member of the Multistate and part of the Executive Committee, but recently withdrew from the Multistate and presented a separate settlement demand, and we are engaging in discussions with the District of Columbia Attorney General’s office in addition to the Multistate. In April 2022, we received a request for information and documents, and we have produced various records in response to the request. In March 2024, the Multistate presented their findings and allegations from their investigation to Acima. In May 2024, Acima submitted its response to the Multistate’s presentation. In the second quarter 2024, Acima received a settlement proposal from the Multistate. Since then, the parties have continued to engage in conversations regarding a potential resolution and Acima has responded to the Multistate’s and District of Columbia’s settlement proposals and monetary demands. As of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, although we would not be willing to agree to the Multistate’s or District of Columbia’s most recent monetary demands which we believe are unsupportable or agree to a number of the other terms presented, we expect to continue to discuss the potential resolution of this matter with the Multistate and the District of Columbia. We are currently unable to predict whether or on what terms, including the amount of a monetary payment and specific business practice changes, any settlement with the Multistate, or individual members of the group, or the District of Columbia, can be achieved. If we are unable to reach agreement on terms acceptable to us and to the various states involved, 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 Litigation. The New York Attorney General (the “NYAG”) issued a subpoena to our Acima subsidiary in January 2020, prior to our acquisition of Acima, 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. Acima cooperated with the NYAG throughout 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. On August 14, 2024, despite Acima’s cooperation with the investigation and its active engagement in settlement discussions with the NYAG, the NYAG filed a lawsuit against Acima in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The lawsuit alleges violations of various consumer financial protection laws and regulations similar to those set forth in the NYAG’s March 2023 proposed assurance of discontinuance. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, unspecified monetary relief and civil penalties and other relief. Acima filed a motion to dismiss the NYAG’s lawsuit. As of the date of filing this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the trial court has not yet ruled on Acima’s motion to dismiss. Acima will continue to vigorously defend itself against the NYAG’s lawsuit. We cannot provide any assurance that Acima will be successful in defending against the NYAG’s litigation or that an 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 certified 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. Our petition for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court in October 2024. Proceedings before the District Court have resumed. In June 2025, the District Court certified a class of consumers who were charged a processing fee in California within the class period, and scheduled a trial date for January 2026. In late July 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the class action. We disagree with the allegations in the case and we did not admit to any violations of law or any wrongdoing. However, to avoid additional expense, risk and distractions associated with further protracted litigation, we have agreed in principle to settle this case. The agreement in principle provides a cash payment by the Company of $14.0 million, which was substantially reserved for as of June 30, 2025, as an estimated loss contingency in our consolidated financial statements. The agreement in principle remains subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive settlement agreement and approval by the District Court of the class settlement, neither of which can be assured. If the settlement is not finalized for any reason, we intend to continue to vigorously defend the litigation. FlexShopper Litigation. On September 30, 2024, FlexShopper, Inc. (“FlexShopper”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Upbound Group, Inc, Acima Holdings, LLC and Acima Digital, LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On October 1, 2024, FlexShopper issued a press release announcing the lawsuit and a similar lawsuit it filed against another lease-to-own company, Katapult Holdings, Inc. The lawsuit filed against our company seeks damages and an injunction for alleged infringement of five patents assigned to FlexShopper. Flexshopper’s claims relate to certain technology allegedly used in connection with Acima’s e-commerce third-party retailer lease-to-own business. In February 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss all of Flexshopper’s claims. In April 2025, we filed a motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. As of the date of filing this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the District Court has not yet ruled on Acima’s motion to dismiss or motion to transfer venue. We will continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit. We are currently unable to predict the eventual outcome of this litigation.