Commitments, Contingencies and Related Party Transactions	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2025
Commitments Contingencies And Related Party Transactions [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Related Party Transactions	Commitments, Contingencies and Related Party Transactions Legal contingencies: Due to the nature of its business activities, the Company is subject to extensive regulations and legal actions and is currently involved in certain legal proceedings, including class action allegations, and regulatory matters, which arise in the normal course of business. In accordance with FASB ASC 450, Contingencies, the Company establishes an accrued liability for legal proceedings and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. The Company has received inquiries from certain agencies and states on its lending compliance, the validity of the bank partnership model, and its ability to facilitate the servicing of bank originated loans. Management is confident that its lending practices and the bank partnership structure, in addition to the Company’s technologies, services, and overall relationship with its bank partners, complies with state and federal laws. However, the inquiries are still in process and the outcome is unknown at this time. The Company is vigorously defending all legal proceedings and regulatory matters. Except as described below, management does not believe that the resolution of any currently pending legal proceedings and regulatory matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. On March 7, 2022, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (“Complaint”) against the Commissioner (in her official capacity) of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation of the State of California (“Defendant”) in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Division (“Court”). The Complaint seeks a declaration that the interest rate caps set forth in the California Financing Law, as amended by the Fair Access to Credit Act, a/k/a AB 539 (“CFL”), do not apply to loans that are originated by the Company’s federally-insured state-chartered bank partners and serviced through the Company’s technology and service platform pursuant to a contractual arrangement with each such bank (“Program”). The Complaint further seeks injunctive relief against the Defendant, preventing the Defendant from enforcing interest rate caps under the CFL against the Company based on activities related to the Program. On April 8, 2022, the Defendant filed a cross-complaint against the Company attempting to enforce the CFL against the Company and, among other things, void loans that are originated by the Company’s federally-insured state-chartered bank partners through the Program in California and seek financial penalties against the Company. On October 17, 2022, the Company filed a cross-complaint against the Defendant seeking declaratory relief for issuing an underground regulation to determine the “true lender” under the CFL without complying with California’s Administrative Procedures Act. On January 30, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Company from providing services to FinWise in connection with loans made to California consumers to the extent that such loans are in excess of California’s interest rate caps. On September 26, 2023, the Court sustained the Defendant’s demurrer to the Company’s cross-complaint with leave to amend. On October 26, 2023, the Company filed its amended cross-complaint. On October 30, 2023, the Defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction was denied. On November 27, 2023, the Defendant filed her answer to the Company’s cross-complaint. On January 22, 2024, the Company’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from the DFPI was granted, and both the DFPI and the Company actively participated in discovery. On September 29, 2025, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against the DFPI. On February 24, 2026, the Court issued a Tentative Statement of Decision, which grants the Company’s summary judgment motion, dismissing the DFPI’s cross-claims alleging violations of the CFL. The Court concluded that the DFPI failed to raise a triable issue of material fact that the Company was the “true lender” or that FinWise was a sham or “dummy” lender, and further found no evidence that the loans at issue were usurious at inception. Accordingly, the Court entered judgment in the Company’s favor on all claims. The Tentative Statement of Decision orders the Company to prepare a proposed final statement of decision and present a proposed judgment by March 26, 2026. The Tentative Statement of Decision authorizes the Company to “expand on this tentative decision with additional evidence and law consistent with the decision.” The DFPI will then have an opportunity to object to the proposed final Statement of Decision with 15 days following March 26, 2026. The Court has set a non-appearance status conference for the end of April. The DFPI retains the right to appeal the decision, and any appeal could result in reversal, remand for further proceedings or continued uncertainty regarding the applicability of the CFL and other California lending laws to our bank partnership model. On July 20, 2023, a stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Case No. 2023-0737) on behalf of a purported class of Company stockholders naming certain of FGNA’s former directors and officers and its controlling stockholder, FG New America Investors, LLC (the “Sponsor”), as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of FGNA stemming from FGNA’s merger with OppFi-LLC and that the defendants were unjustly enriched. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, redemption rights, and attorneys’ fees. On February 7, 2025, the complaint was amended to name Todd Schwartz, the Company’s Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Theodore Schwartz, a director of the Company, Schwartz Capital Group, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer and a former investment banker of the Company, alleging such parties aided and abetted the breaches of the previously named defendants. The Company is not a party to the lawsuit. The Company and OppFi-LLC are obligated to indemnify certain of the defendants in the action. The Company and OppFi-LLC have tendered defense of this action under their respective directors’ and officers’ insurance policies. On February 9, 2026, the parties to the lawsuit informed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter and are working to submit settlement approval paperwork for the court’s consideration and approval. As of December 31, 2025, the Company had $13.0 million in estimated legal contingent liabilities and $8.5 million in related insurance recoveries. Both amounts are recognized within other (expense) income, net in the consolidated statements of operations. Related party transactions: OppFi made payments to the Members pursuant to the TRA totaling $1.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2025. There were no payments to the Members pursuant to the TRA during the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023. Christopher McKay is one of our executive officers. Mr. McKay’s daughter was a former employee whose employment with the Company predated Mr. McKay’s designation as an executive officer in 2021 and concluded in 2024. For the year ended December 31, 2024, Ms. McKay’s total compensation did not exceed $120 thousand. For the year ended December 31, 2023, Ms. McKay’s total compensation was approximately $133 thousand. These compensation arrangements were consistent with those made available to other employees of the Company with similar years of experience and positions. Ms. McKay also participated in the Company’s benefit plans available to all other employees in similar positions.

Commitments, Contingencies and Related Party Transactions

Legal contingencies: Due to the nature of its business activities, the Company is subject to extensive regulations and legal actions and is currently involved in certain legal proceedings, including class action allegations, and regulatory matters, which arise in the normal course of business. In accordance with FASB ASC 450, Contingencies, the Company establishes an accrued liability for legal proceedings and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable.

The Company has received inquiries from certain agencies and states on its lending compliance, the validity of the bank partnership model, and its ability to facilitate the servicing of bank originated loans. Management is confident that its lending practices and the bank partnership structure, in addition to the Company’s technologies, services, and overall relationship with its bank partners, complies with state and federal laws. However, the inquiries are still in process and the outcome is unknown at this time.

The Company is vigorously defending all legal proceedings and regulatory matters. Except as described below, management does not believe that the resolution of any currently pending legal proceedings and regulatory matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

On March 7, 2022, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (“Complaint”) against the Commissioner (in her official capacity) of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation of the State of California (“Defendant”) in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Division (“Court”). The Complaint seeks a declaration that the interest rate caps set forth in the California Financing Law, as amended by the Fair Access to Credit Act, a/k/a AB 539 (“CFL”), do not apply to loans that are originated by the Company’s federally-insured state-chartered bank partners and serviced through the Company’s technology and service platform pursuant to a contractual arrangement with each such bank (“Program”). The Complaint further seeks injunctive relief against the Defendant, preventing the Defendant from enforcing interest rate caps under the CFL against the Company based on activities related to the Program. On April 8, 2022, the Defendant filed a cross-complaint against the Company attempting to enforce the CFL against the Company and, among other things, void loans that are originated by the Company’s federally-insured state-chartered bank partners through the Program in California and seek financial penalties against the Company. On October 17, 2022, the Company filed a cross-complaint against the Defendant seeking declaratory relief for issuing an underground regulation to determine the “true lender” under the CFL without complying with California’s Administrative Procedures Act. On January 30, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Company from providing services to FinWise in connection with loans made to California consumers to the extent that such loans are in excess of California’s interest rate caps. On September 26, 2023, the Court sustained the Defendant’s demurrer to the Company’s cross-complaint with leave to amend. On October 26, 2023, the Company filed its amended cross-complaint. On October 30, 2023, the Defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction was denied. On November 27, 2023, the Defendant filed her answer to the Company’s cross-complaint. On January 22, 2024, the Company’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from the DFPI was granted, and both the DFPI and the Company actively participated in discovery. On September 29, 2025, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against the DFPI. On February 24, 2026, the Court issued a Tentative Statement of Decision, which grants the Company’s summary judgment motion, dismissing the DFPI’s cross-claims alleging violations of the CFL. The Court concluded that the DFPI failed to raise a triable issue of material fact that the Company was the “true lender” or that FinWise was a sham or “dummy” lender, and further found no evidence that the loans at issue were usurious at inception. Accordingly, the Court entered judgment in the Company’s favor on all claims. The Tentative Statement of Decision orders the Company to prepare a proposed final statement of decision and present a proposed judgment by March 26, 2026. The Tentative Statement of Decision authorizes the Company to “expand on this tentative decision with additional evidence and law consistent with the decision.” The DFPI will then have an opportunity to object to the proposed final Statement of Decision with 15 days following March 26, 2026. The Court has set a non-appearance status conference for the end of April. The DFPI retains the right to appeal the decision, and any appeal could result in reversal, remand for further proceedings or continued uncertainty regarding the applicability of the CFL and other California lending laws to our bank partnership model.

On July 20, 2023, a stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Case No. 2023-0737) on behalf of a purported class of Company stockholders naming certain of FGNA’s former directors and officers and its controlling stockholder, FG New America Investors, LLC (the “Sponsor”), as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of FGNA stemming from FGNA’s merger with OppFi-LLC and that the defendants were unjustly enriched. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, redemption rights, and attorneys’ fees. On February 7, 2025, the complaint was amended to name Todd Schwartz, the Company’s Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Theodore Schwartz, a director of the Company, Schwartz Capital Group, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer and a former investment banker of the Company, alleging such parties aided and abetted the breaches of the previously named defendants. The Company is not a party to the lawsuit. The Company and OppFi-LLC are obligated to indemnify certain of the defendants in the action. The Company and OppFi-LLC have tendered defense of this action under their respective directors’ and officers’ insurance policies. On February 9, 2026, the parties to the lawsuit informed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter and are working to submit settlement approval paperwork for the court’s consideration and approval.

As of December 31, 2025, the Company had $13.0 million in estimated legal contingent liabilities and $8.5 million in related insurance recoveries. Both amounts are recognized within other (expense) income, net in the consolidated statements of operations.

Related party transactions: OppFi made payments to the Members pursuant to the TRA totaling $1.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2025. There were no payments to the Members pursuant to the TRA during the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023.

Christopher McKay is one of our executive officers. Mr. McKay’s daughter was a former employee whose employment with the Company predated Mr. McKay’s designation as an executive officer in 2021 and concluded in 2024. For the year ended December 31, 2024, Ms. McKay’s total compensation did not exceed $120 thousand. For the year ended December 31, 2023,