Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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, 2016, the maximum amount that the Company would be obligated to repay in the event franchisees defaulted was $71.2 million. The Company has recourse rights to franchisee assets securing the debt obligations, which consist primarily of lease merchandise and fixed assets. Since the inception of the franchise loan program in 1994, the Company has had no significant associated losses. The Company believes the likelihood of any significant amounts being funded in connection with these commitments to be remote. The carrying amount of the franchisee-related borrowings guarantee, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheets, is approximately $1.2 million as of June 30, 2016. The maximum facility commitment amount under the franchisee loan program is $175.0 million, including a Canadian subfacility commitment amount for loans to franchisees that operate stores in Canada (other than the province of Quebec) of Cdn $50.0 million. The Company remains subject to the financial covenants under the franchisee loan facility. 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 the Company is currently a party are described below. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all of the claims described below, and intends 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 the Company will ultimately be successful in these proceedings, or in others to which it is currently a party. Substantial losses from these proceedings or the costs of defending them could have a material adverse impact upon the Company's 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. 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, 2016, the Company had accrued $5.1 million for pending legal and regulatory matters for which it believes losses are probable, which is the Company's best estimate of its exposure to loss. The Company estimates that the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss in excess of accrued liabilities for such probable loss contingencies is between $0 and $3.5 million. At June 30, 2016, 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 $479,000 and $2.5 million. 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 for legal and regulatory accruals, aggregate probable loss amounts and reasonably possible loss amounts are all subject to the uncertainties and variables described above. 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 claims 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. 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. On October 4, 2013, the Company also 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. On August 14, 2015, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking judicial dismissal of a portion of the claims in the case. The motion filed October 4, 2013 to allow counterclaims was denied by the magistrate judge on June 30, 2014, and that decision was confirmed by the District Court on November 30, 2015. On December 23, 2015, the Company filed a motion with the District Court requesting permission for an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the motion to add counterclaims, which also remains pending. On February 23, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment filed August 14, 2015, dismissing plaintiff’s claims that the pro-rate violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, but denying summary judgment on the claim that Aaron’s Service Plus violated the same act. On March 7, 2016, the Company moved for limited reconsideration of that ruling. On March 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for approval of issuance of class notice. The Company has filed a motion requesting a stay on issuance of class notice pending the ruling on the request for limited reconsideration of the partial summary judgment ruling and the request for interlocutory review of the denial of the motion to add counterclaims filed on December 23, 2015. Those motions remain pending, but the Court has allowed limited pre-notice class discovery to proceed. 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 asserted 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 seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. 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 United States District Judge 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. In addition, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. Finally, the Judge denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the violation of ECPA claims. Plaintiffs requested and received immediate appellate review of these rulings by the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 10, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of class certification on the grounds stated by the District Court, and remanded the case back to the District Court for further consideration of that and the other elements necessary for class certification. The District Court has not issued a new ruling on those matters. 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. On June 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied on July 11, 2015. 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, which expired upon remand of the case back to the District Court. On April 24, 2015, the Company filed a renewed motion to stay, which was granted on June 15, 2015. In Michael Peterson v. Aaron’s, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:14-cv-01919-TWT), 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 plaintiffs' 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 PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs claim that information and data obtained by defendants through PC Rental Agent was attorney-client privileged. The Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On June 4, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss all claims except a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint alleging only the invasion of privacy claims that survived the June 4, 2015 court order, and adding a claim for unjust enrichment. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on September 16, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. The only remaining claim against the Company is a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on March 18, 2016. The Company responded in opposition to that motion, which remains pending. Regulatory Investigations California Attorney General Investigation. The California Attorney General investigated 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 reached a comprehensive resolution of this matter without litigation. The final settlement and consent order were announced on October 13, 2014. The Court filed the final judgment on February 10, 2015. The final payment as scheduled under the consent order was made on January 6, 2016. Other Matters In Foster v. Aaron’s, Inc., filed on August 21, 2015, in the United States District Court in Phoenix, Arizona (No. CV-15-1637-PHX-SRB), the plaintiff in this putative class action alleges that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by placing automated calls to customer references, or otherwise violated the TCPA in the manner in which the Company contacts customer references. The Company's initial responsive pleading was filed on October 7, 2015. A Scheduling Order was entered on January 26, 2016. Other Contingencies The Company is a party to various claims and legal 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. Unfunded Lending Commitments The Company, through its DAMI business, has unfunded lending commitments totaling approximately $390.5 million and $378.7 million as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. These unfunded commitments arise in the ordinary course of business from credit card agreements with individual cardholders that give them the ability to borrow, against unused amounts, up to the maximum credit limit assigned to their account. While these unfunded amounts represented the total available unused lines of credit, the Company does not anticipate that all cardholders will utilize their entire available line at any given point in time. Commitments to extend unsecured credit are agreements to lend to a cardholder so long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses. Since many of the commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The reserve for unfunded loan commitments, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses, is approximately $505,000 as of June 30, 2016. See Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements in the 2015 Annual Report for further information.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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, 2016, the maximum amount that the Company would be obligated to repay in the event franchisees defaulted was $71.2 million. The Company has recourse rights to franchisee assets securing the debt obligations, which consist primarily of lease merchandise and fixed assets. Since the inception of the franchise loan program in 1994, the Company has had no significant associated losses. The Company believes the likelihood of any significant amounts being funded in connection with these commitments to be remote. The carrying amount of the franchisee-related borrowings guarantee, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheets, is approximately $1.2 million as of June 30, 2016.

The maximum facility commitment amount under the franchisee loan program is $175.0 million, including a Canadian subfacility commitment amount for loans to franchisees that operate stores in Canada (other than the province of Quebec) of Cdn $50.0 million. The Company remains subject to the financial covenants under the franchisee loan facility.

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 the Company is currently a party are described below. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all of the claims described below, and intends 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 the Company will ultimately be successful in these proceedings, or in others to which it is currently a party. Substantial losses from these proceedings or the costs of defending them could have a material adverse impact upon the Company's 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. 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, 2016, the Company had accrued $5.1 million for pending legal and regulatory matters for which it believes losses are probable, which is the Company's best estimate of its exposure to loss. The Company estimates that the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss in excess of accrued liabilities for such probable loss contingencies is between $0 and $3.5 million.

At June 30, 2016, 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 $479,000 and $2.5 million. 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 for legal and regulatory accruals, aggregate probable loss amounts and reasonably possible loss amounts are all subject to the uncertainties and variables described above.

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 claims 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. 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. On October 4, 2013, the Company also 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. On August 14, 2015, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking judicial dismissal of a portion of the claims in the case. The motion filed October 4, 2013 to allow counterclaims was denied by the magistrate judge on June 30, 2014, and that decision was confirmed by the District Court on November 30, 2015. On December 23, 2015, the Company filed a motion with the District Court requesting permission for an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the motion to add counterclaims, which also remains pending. On February 23, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment filed August 14, 2015, dismissing plaintiff’s claims that the pro-rate violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, but denying summary judgment on the claim that Aaron’s Service Plus violated the same act. On March 7, 2016, the Company moved for limited reconsideration of that ruling. On March 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for approval of issuance of class notice. The Company has filed a motion requesting a stay on issuance of class notice pending the ruling on the request for limited reconsideration of the partial summary judgment ruling and the request for interlocutory review of the denial of the motion to add counterclaims filed on December 23, 2015. Those motions remain pending, but the Court has allowed limited pre-notice class discovery to proceed.

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 asserted 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 seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.

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 United States District Judge 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. In addition, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. Finally, the Judge denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the violation of ECPA claims. Plaintiffs requested and received immediate appellate review of these rulings by the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 10, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of class certification on the grounds stated by the District Court, and remanded the case back to the District Court for further consideration of that and the other elements necessary for class certification. The District Court has not issued a new ruling on those matters.

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. On June 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied on July 11, 2015.

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, which expired upon remand of the case back to the District Court. On April 24, 2015, the Company filed a renewed motion to stay, which was granted on June 15, 2015.

In Michael Peterson v. Aaron’s, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:14-cv-01919-TWT), 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 plaintiffs' 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 PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs claim that information and data obtained by defendants through PC Rental Agent was attorney-client privileged. The Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On June 4, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss all claims except a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint alleging only the invasion of privacy claims that survived the June 4, 2015 court order, and adding a claim for unjust enrichment. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on September 16, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. The only remaining claim against the Company is a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on March 18, 2016. The Company responded in opposition to that motion, which remains pending.

Regulatory Investigations

California Attorney General Investigation. The California Attorney General investigated 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 reached a comprehensive resolution of this matter without litigation. The final settlement and consent order were announced on October 13, 2014. The Court filed the final judgment on February 10, 2015. The final payment as scheduled under the consent order was made on January 6, 2016.

Other Matters

In Foster v. Aaron’s, Inc., filed on August 21, 2015, in the United States District Court in Phoenix, Arizona (No. CV-15-1637-PHX-SRB), the plaintiff in this putative class action alleges that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by placing automated calls to customer references, or otherwise violated the TCPA in the manner in which the Company contacts customer references. The Company's initial responsive pleading was filed on October 7, 2015. A Scheduling Order was entered on January 26, 2016.

Other Contingencies

The Company is a party to various claims and legal 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.

Unfunded Lending Commitments

The Company, through its DAMI business, has unfunded lending commitments totaling approximately $390.5 million and $378.7 million as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. These unfunded commitments arise in the ordinary course of business from credit card agreements with individual cardholders that give them the ability to borrow, against unused amounts, up to the maximum credit limit assigned to their account. While these unfunded amounts represented the total available unused lines of credit, the Company does not anticipate that all cardholders will utilize their entire available line at any given point in time. Commitments to extend unsecured credit are agreements to lend to a cardholder so long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses. Since many of the commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The reserve for unfunded loan commitments, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses, is approximately $505,000 as of June 30, 2016.

See Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements in the 2015 Annual Report for further information.