Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation and Other Legal Matters

In the normal course of business and as a result of the consumer-oriented nature of the industry in which we operate, we and other industry participants are frequently subject to various consumer claims, litigation, and regulatory investigations seeking damages, fines, and statutory penalties. The claims allege, among other theories of liability, violations of state, federal and foreign truth-in-lending, credit availability, credit reporting, consumer protection, warranty, debt collection, insurance, and other consumer-oriented laws and regulations, including claims seeking damages for alleged physical and mental harm relating to the repossession and sale of consumers’ vehicles and other debt collection activities. As the assignee of Consumer Loans originated by Dealers, we may also be named as a co-defendant in lawsuits filed by consumers principally against Dealers. We may also have disputes and litigation with Dealers. The claims may allege, among other theories of liability, that we breached our Dealer servicing agreement. We may also have disputes and litigation with vendors and other third parties. The claims may allege, among other theories of liability, that we breached a license agreement or contract. The damages, fines, and penalties that may be claimed by consumers, regulatory agencies, Dealers, vendors, or other third parties in these types of matters can be substantial. The relief requested by plaintiffs varies but may include requests for compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages and injunctive relief, and plaintiffs may seek treatment as purported class actions. Current actions to which we are a party include the following matters.

On December 1, 2021, we received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California seeking documents and information regarding GAP products, GAP product administration, and refunds. We are cooperating with this inquiry and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration, or outcome at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this investigation.

On May 7, 2019, we received a subpoena from the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau of the Office of the New York State Attorney General, relating to the Company’s origination and collection policies and procedures in the state of New York. On July 30, 2020, we received two additional subpoenas from the Office of the New York State Attorney General, both from the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau and the Investor Protection Bureau, relating to the Company’s origination and collection policies and procedures in the state of New York and its securitizations. On August 28, 2020, we were informed that one of the two additional subpoenas was being withdrawn. On November 16, 2020, we received an additional subpoena for documents from the Office of the New York State Attorney General. On November 19, 2020, the Company received a letter from the Office of the New York State Attorney General stating that the New York State Attorney General was considering bringing claims against the Company under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), New York Executive Law § 63(12), the New York Martin Act, and New York General Business Law § 349 in connection with the Company’s origination and securitization practices. On December 9, 2020, we responded to the New York State Attorney General’s letter disputing the assertions contained therein. On December 21, 2020, we received two additional subpoenas from the Office of the New York State Attorney General, one relating to data and the other seeking testimony. On February 24 and April 30, 2021, we received additional subpoenas from the Office of the New York State Attorney General seeking information relating to its investigation. On August 23, 2022, we received a letter from the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau of the Office of the New York State Attorney General stating that the Office of the New York State Attorney General intended to commence litigation against the Company asserting violations of New York Executive Law § 63(12) and New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 352 et seq. and applicable federal laws, including but not limited to claims that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in auto lending, debt collection and asset-backed securitizations in the State of New York in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act, New York Executive Law § 63(12), the New York Martin Act and New York General Business Law § 349, and seeking to obtain injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties, damages, disgorgement, reformation, rescission, costs and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On January 4, 2023, the Office of the New York State Attorney General and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (“Bureau”) jointly filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company engaged in deceptive practices, fraud, illegality, and securities fraud in violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12) and New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 352, and that the Company engaged in deceptive and abusive acts and provided substantial assistance to a covered person or service provider in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (the “CFPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 5531 and 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(B). The complaint seeks injunctive relief, an accounting of all consumers for whom the Company provided financing, restitution, damages, disgorgement, civil penalties, and payment of costs. We cannot predict the eventual scope, duration, or outcome of this lawsuit at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this litigation. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

On April 22, 2019, we received a civil investigative demand from the Bureau seeking, among other things, certain information relating to the Company’s origination and collection of Consumer Loans, TPPs, and credit reporting. On May 7, 2020, we received another civil investigative demand from the Bureau seeking additional information relating to its investigation. The Company raised various objections to the May 7, 2020 civil investigative demand, and on May 26, 2020, we were notified that it was withdrawn. On June 1, 2020, we received another civil investigative demand that was similar to the May 7, 2020 demand, and which raised many of the same objections. We formally petitioned the Bureau to modify the June 1, 2020 civil investigative demand. On September 3, 2020, the Director of the Bureau denied our petition to modify the June 1, 2020 civil investigative demand. On December 23, 2020, we received a civil investigative demand for investigational hearings in connection with the Bureau’s investigation. The Company objected to certain portions of the civil investigative demands for hearings and, on January 19, 2021, the Bureau notified the Company that it had withdrawn such portions from the December 23, 2020 civil investigative demands. On March 11, 2021, we received another civil investigative demand from the Bureau seeking additional information relating to its investigation and an investigational hearing. On June 3, 2021, we received another civil investigative demand from the Bureau seeking additional information relating to its investigation. On December 6, 2021, we received a Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise (“NORA”) letter from the Staff of the Office of Enforcement (“Staff”) of the Bureau, stating that the Staff was considering whether to recommend that the Bureau take legal action against the Company for alleged violations of the CFPA in connection with the Company’s consumer loan origination practices. The NORA letter stated that the Bureau may allege that the Company (i) committed abusive and unfair acts or practices in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 5531(c) and (d) and 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(B) and (ii) substantially assisted the deceptive acts of others in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 5536 (a)(3). The NORA letter also stated that, in connection with any action, the Bureau may seek all remedies available under the CFPA, including civil money penalties, consumer redress, and injunctive relief. On January 18, 2022, the Company responded to the NORA letter disputing that it had committed any violations. On March 7, 2022, we received another civil investigative demand from the Bureau seeking additional information relating to its investigation. As noted above, on January 4, 2023, the Bureau and the Office of the New York State Attorney General jointly filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company engaged in deceptive practices, fraud, illegality, and securities fraud in violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12) and New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 352, and that the Company engaged in deceptive and abusive acts and provided substantial assistance to a covered person or service provider in violation of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5531 and 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(B). The complaint seeks injunctive relief, an accounting of all consumers for whom the Company provided financing, restitution, damages, disgorgement, civil penalties, and payment of costs. We cannot predict the eventual scope, duration, or outcome of the lawsuit at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this lawsuit. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

On March 18, 2016, we received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, relating to the Company’s repossession and sale policies and procedures in the state of Maryland. On April 3, 2020, we received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of Maryland relating to the Company’s origination and collection policies and procedures in the state of Maryland. On August 11, 2020, we received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of Maryland restating most of the requests contained in the March 18, 2016 and April 3, 2020 subpoenas, making additional requests, and expanding the inquiry to include 41 other states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia. Also on August 11, 2020, we received from the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey a subpoena that is essentially identical to the August 11, 2020 Maryland subpoena, both as to substance and as to the jurisdictions identified. We are cooperating with these investigations and cannot predict their eventual scope, duration or outcome at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from these investigations.

On December 9, 2014, we received a civil investigative subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 directing us to produce certain information relating to subprime automotive finance and related securitization activities. We have cooperated with the inquiry, but cannot predict the eventual scope, duration, or outcome at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this investigation.

An adverse ultimate disposition in any action to which we are a party or otherwise subject could have a material adverse impact on our financial position, liquidity, and results of operations.

Litigation Resolved during 2022

On October 2, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer (now former Chief Executive Officer), and its Chief Financial Officer (now Chief Executive Officer) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and/or misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company and its business, and seeking class certification, unspecified damages plus interest and attorney and expert witness fees, and other costs on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Acceptance common stock from November 1, 2019 through August 28, 2020. On May 28, 2021, the court issued an opinion and order appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On July 22, 2021, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting similar violations, seeking similar relief, and expanding the putative class to include all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Acceptance common stock from May 4, 2018 through August 28, 2020. On June 14, 2022, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle this putative class action. The agreement in principle contemplated an aggregate cash payment by the Company of $12.0 million, all of which was recognized during the second quarter of 2022, to settle claims brought on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Acceptance common stock from May 4, 2018 through August 28, 2020. On August 24, 2022, the parties executed and filed with the court a definitive stipulation and agreement of settlement, referred to herein as the settlement agreement, which was consistent with the agreement in principle and provides for a full release of all claims against all defendants, including the Company and its officers. The settlement agreement provides that the defendants expressly deny any liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility. On October 17, 2022, the Company wired the $12.0 million payment to a settlement administrator as provided for in the settlement agreement. On December 12, 2022, the court issued an opinion and order granting lead plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the settlement and plan of allocation. On December 16, 2022, the court entered a final order and judgment consistent with the settlement agreement, including dismissal with prejudice of all claims asserted against the Company and its officers.

Regulatory Matter Resolved during 2021

On December 4, 2014, we received a civil investigative demand from the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts relating to the origination and collection of non-prime auto loans in Massachusetts. On November 20, 2017, we received a second civil investigative demand from the Office of the Attorney General seeking updated information on its original civil investigative demand, additional information related to the Company’s origination and collection of Consumer Loans, and information regarding securitization activities. In connection with this inquiry, we were informed by representatives of the Office of the Attorney General that it believed that the Company may have engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices related to the origination and collection of auto loans, which may have caused some of the Company’s representations and warranties contained in securitization documents to be inaccurate. On July 22, 2020, we received a third civil investigative demand from the Office of the Attorney General seeking updates on previously produced data and additional information related to the Company’s origination of Consumer Loans. On August 30, 2020, we were served with a complaint, filed by the Attorney General in Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in subprime auto lending, debt collection and asset-backed securitizations in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, M.G.L. c. 93A. The complaint sought injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties and payment of the Commonwealth’s attorney’s fees and costs. On March 15, 2021, the court entered an order denying a motion by the Company to dismiss four of the Commonwealth’s seven claims and granting in part and denying in part a motion by the Commonwealth for partial summary judgment on three of its claims. On April 27, 2021, the Company and the Commonwealth reached an agreement in principle to settle this lawsuit, and, as a result, we estimated a probable loss of $27.2 million, all of which was recognized as a contingent loss during the first quarter of 2021. On September 1, 2021, we entered into a settlement agreement with the Office of the Attorney General, reflecting the parties’ agreement to settle and fully resolve the claims asserted against us. We made a payment in the total amount of $27.2 million to an independent trust for purposes of making payments to provide relief for eligible Massachusetts consumers, paying costs of implementation of the agreement and paying the Attorney General’s costs of investigation, and to pay up to $95,000 to cover costs and expenses incurred by an independent trustee for management of the independent trust.

Lease Commitments

We lease office equipment and, until December 31, 2022, we also leased office space. We expect that, in the normal course of business, leases will be renewed or replaced by other leases.  Total rental expense on all operating leases was $1.3 million for 2022, $1.4 million for 2021, and $1.7 million for 2020. Contingent rentals under the operating leases were insignificant. Our total minimum future lease commitments under operating leases as of December 31, 2022 are as follows:

(In millions)
Year	Minimum Future Lease Commitments
2023	$	0.7
2024	0.6
2025	0.1
2026	—
2027	—
Total	$	1.4