Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Guarantees The Company has guaranteed certain debt obligations of some of the franchisees under a franchise 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, 2017, the maximum amount that the Company would be obligated to repay in the event franchisees defaulted was $52.6 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 by the Company in connection with these guarantees 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 $0.9 million as of June 30, 2017. The maximum facility commitment amount under the franchisee loan program is $125.0 million, including a Canadian subfacility commitment amount for loans to franchisees that operate stores in Canada (other than the province of Quebec) of CAD $25.0 million. The Company remains subject to the financial covenants under the franchisee loan facility. We are in compliance with the covenants at June 30, 2017 and believe that we will continue to be in compliance in the future. 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, 2017, the Company had accrued $6.3 million for pending legal and regulatory matters for which it believes losses are probable and is the Company's best estimate of its exposure to loss. The Company records these liabilities in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. 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 $1 million. At June 30, 2017, 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 $1 million and $4 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 equitable relief, 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 complaint also seeks 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. 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 a pro-rate feature of the lease agreements violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, but denying summary judgment on the claim that Aaron’s Service Plus violated the same act. In December 2016, a class notice was mailed to certain individuals who were customers of Company-operated stores in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 to March 31, 2011. The parties participated in a settlement conference and reached tentative settlement terms in March 2017. The parties continue to work on a final comprehensive settlement agreement and final court approval. 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, plaintiffs allege 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." Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, seeks an injunction, and names additional independently owned and operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. In March 2014, the United States District Court dismissed all claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises, LLC, dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants, and denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action, but denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the claims alleging ECPA violations. In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 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. On January 24, 2017, final briefs were submitted on the remand of plaintiffs’ motion for class certification with the District Court, and oral arguments were held on March 30, 2017. The Court's decision is pending. 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, 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 as well as certification of a putative California class. In April 2013, the Company removed this matter to federal court. In May 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 June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied in July 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, 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. This case has been stayed pending resolution of the Byrd litigation. 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, plaintiffs claim that the Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy of plaintiffs' law firm's 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 Court has dismissed all claims except a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which the Court denied on January 25, 2017. On May 5, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining single plaintiff case. The briefing on that motion was completed in late June 2017, and it remains pending. Securities Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Aaron's, Inc., John W. Robinson, III, Ryan K. Woodley, and Gilbert L. Danielson, was filed June 16, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The litigation relates to the temporary drop in Aaron’s stock price following the Company’s announcement of 2015 third quarter results. The Complaint alleges that during the period from February 6, 2015 through October 29, 2015, Aaron's made misleading public statements about the Company's expected financial results and business prospects. The allegations underlying the lawsuit principally relate to the loss of certain data feeds experienced by Progressive Leasing beginning in February 2015 and the alleged failure to disclose the same in a timely manner, as well as certain software issues that allegedly hindered the identification of delinquent accounts during certain limited times in 2015. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. 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 $378.4 million and $366.4 million as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, 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 losses on unfunded loan commitments is calculated by the Company based on historical usage patterns of cardholders after the initial charge and is approximately $0.5 million as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. The reserve for losses on unfunded loan commitments is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. See Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements in the 2016 Annual Report for further information.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Guarantees

The Company has guaranteed certain debt obligations of some of the franchisees under a franchise 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, 2017, the maximum amount that the Company would be obligated to repay in the event franchisees defaulted was $52.6 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 by the Company in connection with these guarantees 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 $0.9 million as of June 30, 2017.

The maximum facility commitment amount under the franchisee loan program is $125.0 million, including a Canadian subfacility commitment amount for loans to franchisees that operate stores in Canada (other than the province of Quebec) of CAD $25.0 million. The Company remains subject to the financial covenants under the franchisee loan facility. We are in compliance with the covenants at June 30, 2017 and believe that we will continue to be in compliance in the future.

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, 2017, the Company had accrued $6.3 million for pending legal and regulatory matters for which it believes losses are probable and is the Company's best estimate of its exposure to loss. The Company records these liabilities in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. 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 $1 million.

At June 30, 2017, 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 $1 million and $4 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 equitable relief, 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 complaint also seeks 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. 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 a pro-rate feature of the lease agreements violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, but denying summary judgment on the claim that Aaron’s Service Plus violated the same act. In December 2016, a class notice was mailed to certain individuals who were customers of Company-operated stores in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 to March 31, 2011. The parties participated in a settlement conference and reached tentative settlement terms in March 2017. The parties continue to work on a final comprehensive settlement agreement and final court approval.

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, plaintiffs allege 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." Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, seeks an injunction, and names additional independently owned and operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.

In March 2014, the United States District Court dismissed all claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises, LLC, dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants, and denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action, but denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the claims alleging ECPA violations. In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 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. On January 24, 2017, final briefs were submitted on the remand of plaintiffs’ motion for class certification with the District Court, and oral arguments were held on March 30, 2017. The Court's decision is pending.

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, 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 as well as certification of a putative California class. In April 2013, the Company removed this matter to federal court. In May 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 June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied in July 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, 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. This case has been stayed pending resolution of the Byrd litigation.

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, plaintiffs claim that the Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy of plaintiffs' law firm's 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 Court has dismissed all claims except a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which the Court denied on January 25, 2017. On May 5, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining single plaintiff case. The briefing on that motion was completed in late June 2017, and it remains pending.

Securities

Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Aaron's, Inc., John W. Robinson, III, Ryan K. Woodley, and Gilbert L. Danielson, was filed June 16, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The litigation relates to the temporary drop in Aaron’s stock price following the Company’s announcement of 2015 third quarter results. The Complaint alleges that during the period from February 6, 2015 through October 29, 2015, Aaron's made misleading public statements about the Company's expected financial results and business prospects. The allegations underlying the lawsuit principally relate to the loss of certain data feeds experienced by Progressive Leasing beginning in February 2015 and the alleged failure to disclose the same in a timely manner, as well as certain software issues that allegedly hindered the identification of delinquent accounts during certain limited times in 2015. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

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 $378.4 million and $366.4 million as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, 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 losses on unfunded loan commitments is calculated by the Company based on historical usage patterns of cardholders after the initial charge and is approximately $0.5 million as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. The reserve for losses on unfunded loan commitments is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

See Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements in the 2016 Annual Report for further information.