Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
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 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 March 31, 2019, the maximum amount that the Company would be obligated to repay in the event franchisees defaulted was $36.8 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 franchisee 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 $0.1 million and $0.3 million as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018. The maximum facility commitment amount under the franchisee loan program was $55.0 million at March 31, 2019, 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 is subject to financial covenants under the franchisee loan program that are consistent with the Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement, which are more fully described in Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements in the 2018 Annual Report. The Company is in compliance with all covenants at March 31, 2019 and believes it will continue to be in compliance in the future. Legal and Regulatory 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 March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the Company had accrued $1.7 million and $1.4 million, respectively, 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 estimated that the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss in excess of accrued liabilities for such probable loss contingencies is between $0 and $1.0 million. At March 31, 2019, 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 $2.6 million and $5.2 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. 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 filed an amended complaint, asserting claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, seeking an injunction, and naming 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. Following an appeal of the decision to deny class certification, the matter was sent back to the District Court and, on September 26, 2017, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A petition with the United States Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the denial of class certification a second time was denied on December 11, 2018. The case is now proceeding for determination on an individual basis as to the named plaintiffs. 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. Regulatory Inquiries In July 2018, the Company received civil investigative demands ("CIDs") from the Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") regarding disclosures related to financial products offered by the Company through the Aaron’s Business and Progressive Leasing and whether such disclosures violate the Federal Trade Commission Act (the “FTC Act”). Although we believe we are in compliance with the FTC Act, these inquiries could lead to an enforcement action and/or a consent order, and substantial costs, including legal fees, fines, penalties, and remediation expenses. The Company submitted a significant amount of documentation from both the Aaron’s Business and Progressive Leasing in October 2018 and continues to work with the FTC as its inquiry proceeds. In April 2019, the Aaron’s Business, along with other rent-to-own companies, received an unrelated CID from the FTC focused on certain transactions involving the purchase and sale of customer lease agreements, and whether such transactions violated the FTC Act. Although we believe such transactions were in compliance with the FTC Act, this inquiry could lead to an enforcement action and/or a consent order, and substantial costs. The Company is fully cooperating with the FTC in responding to this inquiry. 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. Off-Balance Sheet Risk The Company, through its DAMI business, had unfunded lending commitments totaling $316.0 million and $316.4 million as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, 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 represent 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 was approximately $0.6 million and $0.5 million as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, 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 2018 Annual Report for further information.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Guarantees

The Company has guaranteed certain debt obligations of some of the 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 March 31, 2019, the maximum amount that the Company would be obligated to repay in the event franchisees defaulted was $36.8 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 franchisee 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 $0.1 million and $0.3 million as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018. The maximum facility commitment amount under the franchisee loan program was $55.0 million at March 31, 2019, 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 is subject to financial covenants under the franchisee loan program that are consistent with the Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement, which are more fully described in Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements in the 2018 Annual Report. The Company is in compliance with all covenants at March 31, 2019 and believes it will continue to be in compliance in the future.

Legal and Regulatory 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 March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the Company had accrued $1.7 million and $1.4 million, respectively, 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 estimated that the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss in excess of accrued liabilities for such probable loss contingencies is between $0 and $1.0 million.

At March 31, 2019, 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 $2.6 million and $5.2 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.

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 filed an amended complaint, asserting claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, seeking an injunction, and naming 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. Following an appeal of the decision to deny class certification, the matter was sent back to the District Court and, on September 26, 2017, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A petition with the United States Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the denial of class certification a second time was denied on December 11, 2018. The case is now proceeding for determination on an individual basis as to the named plaintiffs.

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.

Regulatory Inquiries

In July 2018, the Company received civil investigative demands ("CIDs") from the Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") regarding disclosures related to financial products offered by the Company through the Aaron’s Business and Progressive Leasing and whether such disclosures violate the Federal Trade Commission Act (the “FTC Act”). Although we believe we are in compliance with the FTC Act, these inquiries could lead to an enforcement action and/or a consent order, and substantial costs, including legal fees, fines, penalties, and remediation expenses. The Company submitted a significant amount of documentation from both the Aaron’s Business and Progressive Leasing in October 2018 and continues to work with the FTC as its inquiry proceeds.

In April 2019, the Aaron’s Business, along with other rent-to-own companies, received an unrelated CID from the FTC focused on certain transactions involving the purchase and sale of customer lease agreements, and whether such transactions violated the FTC Act. Although we believe such transactions were in compliance with the FTC Act, this inquiry could lead to an enforcement action and/or a consent order, and substantial costs. The Company is fully cooperating with the FTC in responding to this inquiry.

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.

Off-Balance Sheet Risk

The Company, through its DAMI business, had unfunded lending commitments totaling $316.0 million and $316.4 million as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, 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 represent 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 was approximately $0.6 million and $0.5 million as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, 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 2018 Annual Report for further information.