Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Leases The Company leases warehouse and retail store space for substantially all of its operations under operating leases expiring at various times through 2029. Most of the leases contain renewal options for additional periods ranging from one to 20 years or provide for options to purchase the related property at predetermined purchase prices that do not represent bargain purchase options. The Company also leases transportation and computer equipment under operating leases expiring during the next five years. The Company expects that most leases will be renewed or replaced by other leases in the normal course of business. Guarantees The Company has guaranteed certain debt obligations of some of its franchisees under a franchisee loan program with several banks. In the event these franchisees are unable to meet their debt service payments or otherwise experience an event of default, the Company would be unconditionally liable for the outstanding balance of the franchisees’ debt obligations under the franchisee loan program, which would be due in full within 90 days of the event of default. At June 30, 2014, the maximum amount that the Company would be obligated to repay in the event franchisees defaulted was $103.5 million. The Company has recourse rights to franchisee assets securing the debt obligations, which consist primarily of lease merchandise and fixed assets. As a result, the Company has never incurred, nor does management expect to incur, any significant losses under these guarantees. The carrying amount of the franchise-related borrowings guarantee, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheet, is approximately $1.7 million as of June 30, 2014. Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Loan Facility Agreement and Guaranty On April 14, 2014, the Company entered into the third amended and restated loan facility and guaranty. Pursuant to the franchise loan agreement, subject to certain terms and conditions, the Company’s franchisees can borrow funds guaranteed by the Company. The amended franchise loan facility (i) reduces the maximum commitment available from $200.0 million to $175.0 million, (ii) conforms the interest rates on the facility to the changes in the rates applicable to the new revolving credit agreement and (iii) conforms the covenants, representations, warranties and events of default to the changes reflected in the revolving credit agreement, to contemplate the acquisition of Progressive, and to authorize the new 2014 senior unsecured notes. Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is party to various legal and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Some of the proceedings to which we are currently a party are described below. We believe we have meritorious defenses to all of the claims described below, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. However, these proceedings are still developing and due to the inherent uncertainty in litigation, regulatory and similar adversarial proceedings, there can be no guarantee that we will ultimately be successful in these proceedings, or in others to which we are currently a party. Substantial losses from these proceedings or the costs of defending them could have a material adverse impact upon our business, financial position and results of operations. The Company establishes an accrued liability for legal and regulatory proceedings when it determines that a loss is both probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company continually monitors its litigation and regulatory exposure and reviews the adequacy of its legal and regulatory reserves on a quarterly basis in accordance with applicable accounting rules. The amount of any loss ultimately incurred in relation to matters for which an accrual has been established may be higher or lower than the amounts accrued for such matters. At June 30, 2014, the Company had accrued $34.5 million for pending legal and regulatory matters for which it believes losses are probable, which is the Company's best estimate of the exposure to loss, and mostly relates to the regulatory investigation by the California Attorney General described below. The Company estimates that the aggregate range of possible loss in excess of accrued liabilities for such probable loss contingencies is between $0 and $4.0 million. At June 30, 2014, the Company estimated that the aggregate range of loss for all material pending legal and regulatory proceedings for which a loss is reasonably possible, but less likely than probable (i.e., excluding the contingencies described in the preceding paragraph), is between $38,000 to $166,000. Those matters for which a reasonable estimate is not possible are not included within estimated ranges and, therefore, the estimated ranges do not represent the Company's maximum loss exposure. The Company's estimates as to legal and regulatory accruals, as to aggregate probable loss amounts and as to reasonably possible loss amounts are all subject to the uncertainties and variables described above. Labor and Employment In Kunstmann et al v. Aaron Rents, Inc., filed with the United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Case No.: 2:08-CV-01969-KOB-JEO) on October 22, 2008, plaintiffs alleged that the Company improperly classified store general managers as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The case was conditionally certified as an FLSA collective action on January 25, 2010. Plaintiffs sought to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages. In July 2014, the parties engaged in a successful mediation of this case and reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for an immaterial amount, subject to execution of definitive documentation. The matter of Kurtis Jewell v. Aaron's, Inc. was originally filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division on October 27, 2011 and was transferred on February 23, 2012 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Civil No.:1:12-CV-00563-AT). Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other non-exempt employees who worked in Company stores, alleges that the Company violated the FLSA when it automatically deducted 30 minutes from employees' time for meal breaks on days when plaintiffs allegedly did not take their meal breaks. Plaintiff claims he and other employees actually worked through meal breaks or were interrupted during the course of their meal breaks and asked to perform work. As a result of the automatic deduction, plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to account for all of his working hours when it calculated overtime, and consequently underpaid him. Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for all similarly situated employees nationwide for the applicable time period. On June 28, 2012, the Court issued an order granting conditional certification of a class consisting of all hourly store employees from June 28, 2009 to the present. The class size is approximately 1,788 opt-in plaintiffs, which is less than seven percent of the potential class members. The parties are engaging in discovery. Discovery is expected to continue through October 2014, and the parties have scheduled a resumption of a previous mediation for August 2014. In Daniel Antoine v. Aaron’s, Inc., filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, on July 3, 2014, plaintiff alleges that the Company violated his rights and the rights of putative class members under the Fair Credit Reporting Act by refusing to hire plaintiff and other applicants based upon pre-employment background check reports without first sending such background reports and a pre-adverse action notice to the applicants. The Company expects to answer or otherwise respond to this complaint in late August 2014. Consumer In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in damages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violated certain New Jersey state consumer statutes. Plaintiff's complaint seeks treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and statutory penalty damages of $100 per violation of all contracts issued in New Jersey, and also claim that there are multiple violations per contract. The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 6, 2010 (Civil Action No.: 10-06317(JAP)(LHG)). Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated seeks equitable relief, statutory and treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. Discovery on this matter is closed. On July 31, 2013, the Court certified a class comprising all persons who entered into a rent-to-own contract with the Company in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 through March 31, 2011. In August 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the Company’s request for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification issue. The Company has filed a motion to allow counterclaims against all newly certified class members who may owe legitimate fees or damages to the Company or who failed to return merchandise to the Company prior to obtaining ownership. That motion was denied by the Magistrate judge on June 30, 2014, but an appeal of that ruling is pending with the District Court. Privacy and Related Matters In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1:11-CV-00101-SPB), plaintiffs alleged that the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises (“Aspen Way”) knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”) and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software program called “PC Rental Agent.” Although the District Court dismissed the Company from the original lawsuit on March 20, 2012, after certain procedural motions, on May 23, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which asserts the claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, added a request for injunction, and named additional independently owned and operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss that complaint on substantially the same grounds as it sought to dismiss plaintiffs' prior complaints. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July 1, 2013, and the Company's response was filed in August 2013. On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Judge accepted the recommendations on pending motions. The Court dismissed all claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises, LLC. The Court also dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants. Finally, the Judge recommended denial of the Company’s motion to dismiss the violation of ECPA claims. In addition, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. Plaintiff has requested immediate appellate review of these rulings by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court would have to determine that the issue is appropriate for consideration before the District Court proceeds on the remaining merits of the case, and then to evaluate the merits of the ruling itself. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC502304), plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages in connection with the allegations of the complaint. Plaintiffs are also seeking certification of a putative California class. Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as in the above described Byrd litigation. In April 2013, the Company timely removed this matter to federal Court. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently stayed the case. The Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations remain pending. In Lomi Price v. Aaron's, Inc. and NW Freedom Corporation, filed on February 27, 2013, in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Case No. 13-EV-016812B), an individual plaintiff asserts claims against the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee, NW Freedom Corporation, for invasion of privacy/intrusion on seclusion, computer invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages of not less than $250,000. On April 3, 2013, the Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses. On that same day, the Company also filed a motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The court stayed the proceeding pending rulings on certain motions in the Byrd case. Although the stay has technically expired, neither the court nor the parties are currently pursuing action on this matter. In Michael Peterson v. Aaron’s, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, several plaintiffs allege that they leased computers for use in their law practice. The plaintiffs claim that the Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy of plaintiff’s legal clients in violation of the ECPA and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software program called PC Rental Agent. The plaintiffs claim that information and data obtained by defendants through PC Rental Agent was attorney-client privileged. The Company has filed a motion to stay this proceeding pending the outcome of the Byrd litigation. Regulatory Investigations California Attorney General Investigation. The California Attorney General has been investigating the Company's retail transactional practices, including various leasing and marketing practices, information security and privacy policies and practices related to the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software by certain independently owned and operated Company franchisees. The Company is continuing to cooperate with the investigation, including producing documents for the Attorney General's office and engaging in discussions about a possible resolution of this matter. The Company currently anticipates achieving a comprehensive resolution without litigation. Pennsylvania Attorney General Investigation. There is a pending, active investigation by the Pennsylvania Attorney General relating to the Company's privacy practices in Pennsylvania. The privacy issues are related to the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software by certain independently owned and operated Company franchisees, and the Company's alleged responsibility for that use. The Company is continuing to cooperate in the investigation. Other Commitments At June 30, 2014, the Company had non-cancelable commitments primarily related to certain advertising and marketing programs of $21.4 million. The Company is a party to various claims and legal and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management regularly assesses the Company’s insurance deductibles, monitors the Company's litigation and regulatory exposure with the Company's attorneys and evaluates its loss experience. The Company also enters into various contracts in the normal course of business that may subject it to risk of financial loss if counterparties fail to perform their contractual obligations. See Note 8 to the consolidated financial statements in the 2013 Annual Report for further information.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

The Company leases warehouse and retail store space for substantially all of its operations under operating leases expiring at various times through 2029. Most of the leases contain renewal options for additional periods ranging from one to 20 years or provide for options to purchase the related property at predetermined purchase prices that do not represent bargain purchase options. The Company also leases transportation and computer equipment under operating leases expiring during the next five years. The Company expects that most leases will be renewed or replaced by other leases in the normal course of business.

Guarantees

The Company has guaranteed certain debt obligations of some of its franchisees under a franchisee loan program with several banks. In the event these franchisees are unable to meet their debt service payments or otherwise experience an event of default, the Company would be unconditionally liable for the outstanding balance of the franchisees’ debt obligations under the franchisee loan program, which would be due in full within 90 days of the event of default. At June 30, 2014, the maximum amount that the Company would be obligated to repay in the event franchisees defaulted was $103.5 million. The Company has recourse rights to franchisee assets securing the debt obligations, which consist primarily of lease merchandise and fixed assets. As a result, the Company has never incurred, nor does management expect to incur, any significant losses under these guarantees. The carrying amount of the franchise-related borrowings guarantee, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheet, is approximately $1.7 million as of June 30, 2014.

Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Loan Facility Agreement and Guaranty

On April 14, 2014, the Company entered into the third amended and restated loan facility and guaranty. Pursuant to the franchise loan agreement, subject to certain terms and conditions, the Company’s franchisees can borrow funds guaranteed by the Company. The amended franchise loan facility (i) reduces the maximum commitment available from $200.0 million to $175.0 million, (ii) conforms the interest rates on the facility to the changes in the rates applicable to the new revolving credit agreement and (iii) conforms the covenants, representations, warranties and events of default to the changes reflected in the revolving credit agreement, to contemplate the acquisition of Progressive, and to authorize the new 2014 senior unsecured notes.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company is party to various legal and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business.

Some of the proceedings to which we are currently a party are described below. We believe we have meritorious defenses to all of the claims described below, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. However, these proceedings are still developing and due to the inherent uncertainty in litigation, regulatory and similar adversarial proceedings, there can be no guarantee that we will ultimately be successful in these proceedings, or in others to which we are currently a party. Substantial losses from these proceedings or the costs of defending them could have a material adverse impact upon our business, financial position and results of operations.

The Company establishes an accrued liability for legal and regulatory proceedings when it determines that a loss is both probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company continually monitors its litigation and regulatory exposure and reviews the adequacy of its legal and regulatory reserves on a quarterly basis in accordance with applicable accounting rules. The amount of any loss ultimately incurred in relation to matters for which an accrual has been established may be higher or lower than the amounts accrued for such matters.

At June 30, 2014, the Company had accrued $34.5 million for pending legal and regulatory matters for which it believes losses are probable, which is the Company's best estimate of the exposure to loss, and mostly relates to the regulatory investigation by the California Attorney General described below. The Company estimates that the aggregate range of possible loss in excess of accrued liabilities for such probable loss contingencies is between $0 and $4.0 million.

At June 30, 2014, the Company estimated that the aggregate range of loss for all material pending legal and regulatory proceedings for which a loss is reasonably possible, but less likely than probable (i.e., excluding the contingencies described in the preceding paragraph), is between $38,000 to $166,000. Those matters for which a reasonable estimate is not possible are not included within estimated ranges and, therefore, the estimated ranges do not represent the Company's maximum loss exposure. The Company's estimates as to legal and regulatory accruals, as to aggregate probable loss amounts and as to reasonably possible loss amounts are all subject to the uncertainties and variables described above.

Labor and Employment

In Kunstmann et al v. Aaron Rents, Inc., filed with the United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Case No.: 2:08-CV-01969-KOB-JEO) on October 22, 2008, plaintiffs alleged that the Company improperly classified store general managers as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The case was conditionally certified as an FLSA collective action on January 25, 2010. Plaintiffs sought to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages. In July 2014, the parties engaged in a successful mediation of this case and reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for an immaterial amount, subject to execution of definitive documentation.

The matter of Kurtis Jewell v. Aaron's, Inc. was originally filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division on October 27, 2011 and was transferred on February 23, 2012 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Civil No.:1:12-CV-00563-AT). Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other non-exempt employees who worked in Company stores, alleges that the Company violated the FLSA when it automatically deducted 30 minutes from employees' time for meal breaks on days when plaintiffs allegedly did not take their meal breaks. Plaintiff claims he and other employees actually worked through meal breaks or were interrupted during the course of their meal breaks and asked to perform work. As a result of the automatic deduction, plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to account for all of his working hours when it calculated overtime, and consequently underpaid him. Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for all similarly situated employees nationwide for the applicable time period. On June 28, 2012, the Court issued an order granting conditional certification of a class consisting of all hourly store employees from June 28, 2009 to the present. The class size is approximately 1,788 opt-in plaintiffs, which is less than seven percent of the potential class members. The parties are engaging in discovery. Discovery is expected to continue through October 2014, and the parties have scheduled a resumption of a previous mediation for August 2014.

In Daniel Antoine v. Aaron’s, Inc., filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, on July 3, 2014, plaintiff alleges that the Company violated his rights and the rights of putative class members under the Fair Credit Reporting Act by refusing to hire plaintiff and other applicants based upon pre-employment background check reports without first sending such background reports and a pre-adverse action notice to the applicants. The Company expects to answer or otherwise respond to this complaint in late August 2014.

Consumer

In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in damages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violated certain New Jersey state consumer statutes. Plaintiff's complaint seeks treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and statutory penalty damages of $100 per violation of all contracts issued in New Jersey, and also claim that there are multiple violations per contract. The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 6, 2010 (Civil Action No.: 10-06317(JAP)(LHG)). Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated seeks equitable relief, statutory and treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. Discovery on this matter is closed. On July 31, 2013, the Court certified a class comprising all persons who entered into a rent-to-own contract with the Company in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 through March 31, 2011. In August 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the Company’s request for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification issue. The Company has filed a motion to allow counterclaims against all newly certified class members who may owe legitimate fees or damages to the Company or who failed to return merchandise to the Company prior to obtaining ownership. That motion was denied by the Magistrate judge on June 30, 2014, but an appeal of that ruling is pending with the District Court.

Privacy and Related Matters

In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1:11-CV-00101-SPB), plaintiffs alleged that the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises (“Aspen Way”) knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”) and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software program called “PC Rental Agent.” Although the District Court dismissed the Company from the original lawsuit on March 20, 2012, after certain procedural motions, on May 23, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which asserts the claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, added a request for injunction, and named additional independently owned and operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss that complaint on substantially the same grounds as it sought to dismiss plaintiffs' prior complaints. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July 1, 2013, and the Company's response was filed in August 2013. On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Judge accepted the recommendations on pending motions. The Court dismissed all claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises, LLC. The Court also dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants. Finally, the Judge recommended denial of the Company’s motion to dismiss the violation of ECPA claims. In addition, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. Plaintiff has requested immediate appellate review of these rulings by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court would have to determine that the issue is appropriate for consideration before the District Court proceeds on the remaining merits of the case, and then to evaluate the merits of the ruling itself. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.

In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC502304), plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages in connection with the allegations of the complaint. Plaintiffs are also seeking certification of a putative California class. Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as in the above described Byrd litigation. In April 2013, the Company timely removed this matter to federal Court. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently stayed the case. The Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations remain pending.

In Lomi Price v. Aaron's, Inc. and NW Freedom Corporation, filed on February 27, 2013, in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Case No. 13-EV-016812B), an individual plaintiff asserts claims against the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee, NW Freedom Corporation, for invasion of privacy/intrusion on seclusion, computer invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages of not less than $250,000. On April 3, 2013, the Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses. On that same day, the Company also filed a motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The court stayed the proceeding pending rulings on certain motions in the Byrd case. Although the stay has technically expired, neither the court nor the parties are currently pursuing action on this matter.

In Michael Peterson v. Aaron’s, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, several plaintiffs allege that they leased computers for use in their law practice. The plaintiffs claim that the Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy of plaintiff’s legal clients in violation of the ECPA and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software program called PC Rental Agent. The plaintiffs claim that information and data obtained by defendants through PC Rental Agent was attorney-client privileged. The Company has filed a motion to stay this proceeding pending the outcome of the Byrd litigation.

Regulatory Investigations

California Attorney General Investigation. The California Attorney General has been investigating the Company's retail transactional practices, including various leasing and marketing practices, information security and privacy policies and practices related to the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software by certain independently owned and operated Company franchisees. The Company is continuing to cooperate with the investigation, including producing documents for the Attorney General's office and engaging in discussions about a possible resolution of this matter. The Company currently anticipates achieving a comprehensive resolution without litigation.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Investigation. There is a pending, active investigation by the Pennsylvania Attorney General relating to the Company's privacy practices in Pennsylvania. The privacy issues are related to the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software by certain independently owned and operated Company franchisees, and the Company's alleged responsibility for that use. The Company is continuing to cooperate in the investigation.

Other Commitments

At June 30, 2014, the Company had non-cancelable commitments primarily related to certain advertising and marketing programs of $21.4 million.

The Company is a party to various claims and legal and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management regularly assesses the Company’s insurance deductibles, monitors the Company's litigation and regulatory exposure with the Company's attorneys and evaluates its loss experience. The Company also enters into various contracts in the normal course of business that may subject it to risk of financial loss if counterparties fail to perform their contractual obligations.

See Note 8 to the consolidated financial statements in the 2013 Annual Report for further information.