Penalty Amount
$10,500,000
Connecticut and a coalition of 43 states settled allegations that Acima misled consumers about rent-to-own agreements, marked up merchandise prices, and obstructed consumers’ ability to terminate agreements. The $183.5 million settlement includes consumer restitution, lease balance reductions, and a $10.5 million payment to the states, along with injunctive reforms.
Acima must pay $10.5 million to the states, provide $43 million in consumer restitution and $130 million in lease balance reductions, and comply with injunctive terms covering advertising disclosures, electronic agreement execution, pricing, termination rights, credit reporting, retail-partner training, and merchandise delivery and repair obligations.
Review vendor and retailer partnership agreements for required training, oversight, and controls on how financing or rent-to-own products are marketed and presented at checkout. Review customer-facing rental-purchase and electronic-signature terms to ensure the agreement duration, total cost, payment options, and termination rights are clearly disclosed, and confirm return and cancellation procedures are not obstructed. Review credit-reporting provisions and operational obligations for delivery, damaged goods, and repairs; employee procedures and training materials should align with these contractual requirements.
Entity
Acima Digital, LLC and Acima Holdings, LLC
Industry
Financial Services"with Acima Digital, LLC and its parent company, Acima Holdings, LLC"
"a $10.5 million payment to the states."
"Acima marketed its rental-purchase agreements as 90-day pay off programs without disclosing that consumers were automatically defaulted into the maximum 12-month term whereby consumers could pay approximately two times the cash price advertised by Acima’s retail partner."
$10.5M
New Jersey and 42 other states settled allegations that Acima misled consumers about rent-to-own costs and terms, including by obscuring terms during electronic signing and impeding returns. The settlement provides $43 million in consumer restitution, a $10.5 million payment to the states, and $130 million in lease balance reductions, and requires changes to Acima’s practices.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a multistate coalition in submitting a comment letter opposing a proposed DHS rule that would require institutions to pay up to $100,000 for each international student recommended for Optional Practical Training. The coalition argued that the proposal exceeds DHS’s legal authority, imposes an unauthorized tax, and fails to adequately assess its impacts; it urged DHS to withdraw the proposal.
$10.0M
A March 2023 breach exposed personal and protected health information belonging to more than 13.3 million people after hackers accessed the companies’ systems, including unencrypted files, and security alerts were not properly configured. The companies agreed to pay at least $300,000 in penalties, with up to $9.7 million more due if they fail to comply, and to implement extensive security, incident-response, and data-handling reforms.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and a 23-state coalition obtained a court ruling declaring unlawful federal immigration-enforcement conditions placed on Congressionally authorized public safety grants. The court permanently enjoined the federal government from implementing or enforcing those conditions; the release does not describe a privacy violation or monetary penalty.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong co-led a bipartisan coalition of 45 attorneys general urging Congress to pass the Kids Online Safety Act. This was a legislative advocacy effort, not a new enforcement action; the release discusses prior investigations into platforms’ effects on children and a separate Meta settlement.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a coalition of 24 attorneys general and two governors in opposing proposed changes to the 2030 Census. The coalition argued the proposal would exclude people from the count, remove demographic questions, and replace the usual-residence standard; this was a comment-letter action, not a penalty or enforcement order.