[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-305960-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-305960-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","defendants-acima-digital-llc-and-acima-holdings-llcs-motion-to-dismiss-121624","Defendants Acima Digital, LLC and Acima Holdings, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss - 12/16/24","","Motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Defendants Acima Digital, LLC and Acima Holdings, LLC seeking dismissal of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s complaint in its entirety. The filing argues the CFPB’s funding mechanism is unconstitutional, that the CFPB lacks statutory authority over Acima’s lease-to-own transactions, and that the CFPB’s reinterpretations violated due process fair notice. It further contends the complaint fails to plausibly allege deceptive, unfair, or abusive practices and that certain claims are time-barred in part.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/defendants-acima-digital-llc-and-acima-holdings-llcs-motion-to-dismiss-121624/305960/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/defendants-acima-digital-llc-and-acima-holdings-llcs-motion-to-dismiss-121624/305960.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Fahsai","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-12","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",6,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What do the defendants request in this filing?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Defendants Acima Digital, LLC and Acima Holdings, LLC move to dismiss the CFPB’s complaint in its entirety.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why do the defendants argue the CFPB lacks authority over the lease-to-own transactions?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"They argue the lease-to-own arrangements are not “credit” transactions or equivalent to purchase finance, are not “credit sales,” and that Acima is not a “financial institution” under the cited statutes.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What additional bases are asserted for dismissal?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The filing argues the CFPB’s reinterpretations violated due process fair notice, that the complaint fails to plausibly allege deceptive, unfair, or abusive practices, and that some claims are time-barred in part.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},305960,1790468214,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,114,118,123],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":115,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":126},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":128},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":129,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":22,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":141,"read_time":105},549768702563,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/8000c4aa63b76e948b?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1786536092046926083","Case 2:24-cv-00525-DBB-CMR Document 45 Filed 12/16/24 PageID.322 Page 1 of 45  \nMatthew P. Previn* Paul Hastings LLP  \n200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 318-6049 Facsimile: (212) 551-0201  \n*admitted pro hac vice  \nBenson L. Hathaway, Jr. (Bar No. 4219) Alyssa Nielsen (Bar No. 18066) KIRTON McCONKIE  \n50 East South Temple, 4th Floor  \nP.O. Box 45120  \nSalt Lake City, Utah 84145-0120 Telephone: (801) 328-3600  \n[bhathawa@kmclaw.com](bhathawa@kmclaw.com)[anielsen@kmclaw.com](anielsen@kmclaw.com)  \nBradley J. Bondi* Paul Hastings LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, DC 20036  \nTelephone: (202) 551-1700  \nFacsimile: (202) 303-7049 *admitted pro hac vice  \nCounsel for Defendants Acima Digital, LLC and Acima Holdings, LLC  \nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH  \n\n| CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU,\u003Cbr>Plaintiff,\u003Cbr>v.\u003Cbr>ACIMA HOLDINGS, LLC, ACIMA DIGITAL, LLC (F/K/AACIMA CREDIT, LLC, D/B/AACIMA LEASING), and AARON ALLRED,\u003Cbr>Defendants. | DEFENDANTS ACIMA DIGITAL, LLC AND ACIMA HOLDINGS, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS\u003Cbr>Case No. 2:24-CV-00525-DBB Judge David B. Barlow\u003Cbr>Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero |\n| --- | --- |\n\nPursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and DUCivR 7-1(a), Defendants Acima Digital, LLC and Acima Holdings, LLC hereby respectfully move the Court to dismiss the CFPB’s complaint in its entirety. Pursuant to DUCivR 7-1(a)(1), the foregoing motion (the“Motion”) is supported by the following memorandum of law.  \nCase 2:24-cv-00525-DBB-CMR Document 45 Filed 12/16/24 PageID.323 Page 2 of 45  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nRELIEF SOUGHT AND GROUNDS THEREFOR ...................................................................... 1  \nINTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1  \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 4  \nARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 8  \nI. The CFPB’s Current Funding Mechanism Is Unconstitutional and Not in Accordance with the Law....................................................................................................................... 8  \nII. The CFPB Does Not Have Statutory Authority To Regulate Acima’s Lease-To-Own Transactions...................................................................................................................... 11  \nA. Acima’s Lease-To-Own Transactions Are Not “Credit” Transactions Under the CFPA, the TILA, and the EFTA..................................................................... 12  \nB. Acima’s Lease-To-Own Transactions Are Not the “Functional Equivalent” of Purchase Finance Arrangements under the CFPA................................................ 18  \nC. Acima’s Lease-To-Own Transactions Are Not “Credit Sales” Under the TILA and its Implementing Regulation Z....................................................................... 18  \nD. Acima Is Not a “Financial Institution” Under The FCRA.................................... 22  \nIII. The CFPB’s Sudden Reinterpreation of the CFPA, the TILA, the EFTA, and Section 1681s-2(a)(7) of the FCRA Violated Acima’s Due Process Right to Fair Notice............ 23  \nIV. The Court Should Dismiss Counts I–VIII Because the Complaint Fails To Allege Plausibly Any Deceptive, Unfair, or Abusive Practices................................................... 25  \nA. The CFPB Fails To Allege Plausibly that Acima’s “90 Day Same As Cash”Marketing Is Deceptive (Count I) ......................................................................... 25  \nB. The CFPB Fails To Allege Plausibly That Acima Deceptively Represented to Customers an Obligation To Maintain “Autopay”(Counts II and III) ................. 27  \nC. The CFPB Fails To Allege Plausibly that Acima Deceptively Misrepresented Consumers’ Abili","cbCaipts9wrGnxnZ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipts9wrGnxnZ","pdf",427049,45,"English","# Relief Sought and Grounds Therefor\n# Introduction\n# Factual Background\n# Argument\n## I. CFPB funding mechanism\n## II. Statutory authority to regulate lease-to-own\n## III. Due process fair notice\n## IV. Deceptive, unfair, or abusive practices\n## V. TILA disclosures and applicability\n## VI. Time-barred claims\n# Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"What do the defendants request in this filing?\",\"answer\":\"Defendants Acima Digital, LLC and Acima Holdings, LLC move to dismiss the CFPB’s complaint in its entirety.\"},{\"question\":\"Why do the defendants argue the CFPB lacks authority over the lease-to-own transactions?\",\"answer\":\"They argue the lease-to-own arrangements are not “credit” transactions or equivalent to purchase finance, are not “credit sales,” and that Acima is not a “financial institution” under the cited statutes.\"},{\"question\":\"What additional bases are asserted for dismissal?\",\"answer\":\"The filing argues the CFPB’s reinterpretations violated due process fair notice, that the complaint fails to plausibly allege deceptive, unfair, or abusive practices, and that some claims are time-barred in part.\"}]","Defendants Acima Digital, LLC and Acima Holdings, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss - 12/16/24 | PDF",1789831409]