Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Contingent Liabilities	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation and Other Legal Matters In the normal course of business and as a result of the consumer-oriented nature of the industry in which we operate, we and other industry participants are frequently subject to various consumer claims, litigation, and regulatory investigations seeking damages, fines, and statutory penalties. The claims allege, among other theories of liability, violations of state, federal, and foreign truth-in-lending, credit availability, credit reporting, consumer protection, warranty, debt collection, insurance, and other consumer-oriented laws and regulations, including claims seeking damages for alleged physical and mental harm relating to the repossession and sale of consumers’ vehicles and other debt collection activities. As the assignee of Consumer Loans originated by Dealers, we may also be named as a co-defendant in lawsuits filed by consumers principally against Dealers. We may also have disputes and litigation with Dealers. The claims may allege, among other theories of liability, that we breached the Dealer servicing agreement. We may also have disputes and litigation with vendors and other third parties. The claims may allege, among other theories of liability, that we breached a license agreement or contract. The damages, fines, and penalties that may be claimed by consumers, regulatory agencies, Dealers, vendors, or other third parties in these types of matters can be substantial. The relief requested by plaintiffs varies but may include requests for compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages and injunctive relief, and plaintiffs may seek treatment as purported class actions or they may file individual arbitration demands for which arbitration providers may request separate filing fees. The following matters include current actions to which we are a party and updates to matters that were disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024. In many proceedings, including the specific actions described below, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even reasonably possible or to estimate the size or range of the possible loss, and accruals for legal matters are not recorded until a loss for a particular matter is considered probable and reasonably estimable. Given the nature of legal matters and the complexities involved, it is often difficult to predict and determine a meaningful estimate of loss or range of loss until we know, among other factors, the particular claims involved, the likelihood of success of our defenses to those claims, the damages or other relief sought, how discovery or other procedural considerations will affect the outcome, the settlement posture of other parties, and other factors that may have a material effect on the outcome. For these matters, unless otherwise specified, we do not believe it is possible to provide a meaningful estimate of loss at this time. Moreover, it is not uncommon for legal matters to be resolved over many years, during which time relevant developments and new information must be continuously evaluated. The total recorded accrual balance as of June 30, 2025 for these matters was $31.8 million. An adverse ultimate disposition in any action to which we are a party or otherwise subject could have a material adverse impact on our financial position, liquidity, and results of operations. On April 7, 2025, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by allegedly calling the cellular phones of members of the putative class without prior express consent and with the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class and requests damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. On May 14, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Rather than responding to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on May 29, 2025. On June 12, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, which is now fully briefed. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. On December 1, 2021, we received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California seeking documents and information regarding GAP products, GAP product administration, and refunds. We cooperated with this inquiry and, on May 8, 2025, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California confirmed that the matter is closed. On May 7, 2019, we received a subpoena from the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau of the Office of the New York State Attorney General, relating to the Company’s origination and collection policies and procedures in the state of New York. After May 7, 2019 through April 30, 2021, we received additional subpoenas from the Office of the New York State Attorney General relating to the Company’s origination, collection, and securitization practices. On November 19, 2020 and August 23, 2022, we received letters from the Office of the New York State Attorney General indicating that it may commence litigation against the Company asserting violations of New York Executive Law § 63(12) and New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 352 et seq. and applicable federal laws, including but not limited to claims that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in auto lending, debt collection, and asset-backed securitizations in the State of New York in violation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, New York Executive Law § 63(12), the New York Martin Act, and New York General Business Law § 349. See the description below of the lawsuit commenced by the Office of the New York State Attorney General on January 4, 2023. On April 22, 2019, we received a civil investigative demand from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“Bureau”) seeking, among other things, certain information relating to the Company’s origination and collection of Consumer Loans, TPPs, and credit reporting. After April 22, 2019 through March 7, 2022, we received additional subpoenas from the Bureau. On December 6, 2021, we received a Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise letter from the Staff of the Office of Enforcement (“Staff”) of the Bureau, stating that the Staff was considering whether to recommend that the Bureau take legal action against the Company for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (the “CFPA”) in connection with the Company’s consumer loan origination practices. See the description below of the lawsuit commenced by the Bureau on January 4, 2023. On January 4, 2023, the Office of the New York State Attorney General and the Bureau jointly filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company engaged in deceptive practices, fraud, illegality, and securities fraud in violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12) and New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 352, and that the Company engaged in deceptive and abusive acts and provided substantial assistance to a covered person or service provider in violation of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5531 and 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(B). The complaint seeks injunctive relief, an accounting of all consumers for whom the Company provided financing, restitution, damages, disgorgement, civil penalties, and payment of costs. On March 14, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 7, 2023, the court stayed the action pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., No. 22-448 (“CFSA”). On July 1, 2024, the court lifted the stay in view of the decision in CFSA and requested revised briefing on the Company’s motion to dismiss that would address the intervening legal developments and sharpen the issues for resolution. As of October 29, 2024, the Company's motion to dismiss has been fully briefed. On April 24, 2025, the Bureau filed an unopposed motion to withdraw as plaintiff, and on April 29, 2025, the court granted that motion and ordered that the Bureau is no longer a plaintiff in the litigation. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. On March 18, 2016, we received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, relating to the Company’s repossession and sale policies and procedures in the state of Maryland. On April 3, 2020, we received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of Maryland relating to the Company’s origination and collection policies and procedures in the state of Maryland. On August 11, 2020, we received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of Maryland restating most of the requests contained in the March 18, 2016 and April 3, 2020 subpoenas, making additional requests, and expanding the inquiry to include 41 other states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia. Also on August 11, 2020, we received from the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey a subpoena that is essentially identical to the August 11, 2020 Maryland subpoena, both as to substance and as to the jurisdictions identified. The Company has been informed that the State of Kansas, the State of Texas, and the State of Iowa have withdrawn from the multistate investigation. We are cooperating with these investigations and cannot predict their eventual scope, duration, or outcome at this time.

In the normal course of business and as a result of the consumer-oriented nature of the industry in which we operate, we and other industry participants are frequently subject to various consumer claims, litigation, and regulatory investigations seeking damages, fines, and statutory penalties. The claims allege, among other theories of liability, violations of state, federal, and foreign truth-in-lending, credit availability, credit reporting, consumer protection, warranty, debt collection, insurance, and other consumer-oriented laws and regulations, including claims seeking damages for alleged physical and mental harm relating to the repossession and sale of consumers’ vehicles and other debt collection activities. As the assignee of Consumer Loans originated by Dealers, we may also be named as a co-defendant in lawsuits filed by consumers principally against Dealers. We may also have disputes and litigation with Dealers. The claims may allege, among other theories of liability, that we breached the Dealer servicing agreement. We may also have disputes and litigation with vendors and other third parties. The claims may allege, among other theories of liability, that we breached a license agreement or contract. The damages, fines, and penalties that may be claimed by consumers, regulatory agencies, Dealers, vendors, or other third parties in these types of matters can be substantial. The relief requested by plaintiffs varies but may include requests for compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages and injunctive relief, and plaintiffs may seek treatment as purported class actions or they may file individual arbitration demands for which arbitration providers may request separate filing fees.

The following matters include current actions to which we are a party and updates to matters that were disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024. In many proceedings, including the specific actions described below, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even reasonably possible or to estimate the size or range of the possible loss, and accruals for legal matters are not recorded until a loss for a particular matter is considered probable and reasonably estimable. Given the nature of legal matters and the complexities involved, it is often difficult to predict and determine a meaningful estimate of loss or range of loss until we know, among other factors, the particular claims involved, the likelihood of success of our defenses to those claims, the damages or other relief sought, how discovery or other procedural considerations will affect the outcome, the settlement posture of other parties, and other factors that may have a material effect on the outcome. For these matters, unless otherwise specified, we do not believe it is possible to provide a meaningful estimate of loss at this time. Moreover, it is not uncommon for legal matters to be resolved over many years, during which time relevant developments and new information must be continuously evaluated. The total recorded accrual balance as of June 30, 2025 for these matters was $31.8 million. An adverse ultimate disposition in any action to which we are a party or otherwise subject could have a material adverse impact on our financial position, liquidity, and results of operations.

On April 7, 2025, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by allegedly calling the cellular phones of members of the putative class without prior express consent and with the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class and requests damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. On May 14, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Rather than responding to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on May 29, 2025. On June 12, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, which is now fully briefed. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

On December 1, 2021, we received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California seeking documents and information regarding GAP products, GAP product administration, and refunds. We cooperated with this inquiry and, on May 8, 2025, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California confirmed that the matter is closed.

On May 7, 2019, we received a subpoena from the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau of the Office of the New York State Attorney General, relating to the Company’s origination and collection policies and procedures in the state of New York. After May 7, 2019 through April 30, 2021, we received additional subpoenas from the Office of the New York State Attorney General relating to the Company’s origination, collection, and securitization practices. On November 19, 2020 and August 23, 2022, we received letters from the Office of the New York State Attorney General indicating that it may commence litigation against the Company asserting violations of New York Executive Law § 63(12) and New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 352 et seq. and applicable federal laws, including but not limited to claims that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in auto lending, debt collection, and asset-backed securitizations in the State of New York in violation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, New York Executive Law § 63(12), the New York Martin Act, and New York General Business Law § 349. See the description below of the lawsuit commenced by the Office of the New York State Attorney General on January 4, 2023.

On April 22, 2019, we received a civil investigative demand from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“Bureau”) seeking, among other things, certain information relating to the Company’s origination and collection of Consumer Loans, TPPs, and credit reporting. After April 22, 2019 through March 7, 2022, we received additional subpoenas from the Bureau. On December 6, 2021, we received a Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise letter from the Staff of the Office of Enforcement (“Staff”) of the Bureau, stating that the Staff was considering whether to recommend that the Bureau take legal action against the Company for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (the “CFPA”) in connection with the Company’s consumer loan origination practices. See the description below of the lawsuit commenced by the Bureau on January 4, 2023.

On January 4, 2023, the Office of the New York State Attorney General and the Bureau jointly filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company engaged in deceptive practices, fraud, illegality, and securities fraud in violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12) and New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 352, and that the Company engaged in deceptive and abusive acts and provided substantial assistance to a covered person or service provider in violation of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5531 and 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(B). The complaint seeks injunctive relief, an accounting of all consumers for whom the Company provided financing, restitution, damages, disgorgement, civil penalties, and payment of costs. On March 14, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 7, 2023, the court stayed the action pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., No. 22-448 (“CFSA”). On July 1, 2024, the court lifted the stay in view of the decision in CFSA and requested revised briefing on the Company’s motion to dismiss that would address the intervening legal developments and sharpen the issues for resolution. As of October 29, 2024, the Company's motion to dismiss has been fully briefed. On April 24, 2025, the Bureau filed an unopposed motion to withdraw as plaintiff, and on April 29, 2025, the court granted that motion and ordered that the Bureau is no longer a plaintiff in the litigation. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.