Acima Credit

Acima Credit, LLC (“Acima”) received the complaint filed by Ms [redacted] through the Revdex.com on September 22, We have provided a response below that addresses her claims of double taxation and explain her contractual obligationsOn March 28, 2017, Ms [redacted] applied and was approved for the leasing services of AcimaOn March 28, 2017, Acima purchased a queen bedroom set, queen mattress, a night stand, and a chest (the “Property”) from an independent retailer Furniture & Rugs Outlet – located in Lansing, Illinois, and entered into a Lease-Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) with Ms [redacted] to rent the Property to her The Agreement stipulated that Ms [redacted] would rent the Property from Acima for a period of months through monthly renewal payments of $for a total of payments of $3, Ms [redacted] argues in her complaint that she is being double taxedThe state of Illinois requires that sales tax be levied on the purchase of the merchandiseThe Property was purchased in Illinois; therefore, sales tax was assessed to the invoice amount of the Property at the point of sale Subsequently, Ms [redacted] maintains possession of the Property in the state of IndianaIn the state of Indiana, we are required to levy taxes on the use of the PropertyBecause Ms [redacted] maintains use of the Property in Indiana, the law requires us to assess use tax on each renewal paymentMs [redacted] claims that she is being double taxed, however she is notShe was charged sales tax from the sale of the Property in Illinois, and use tax for the use of the Property in IndianaShe also claims that we are requiring payments from her that are not consistent to the terms of the AgreementPursuant to the Agreement, “Acima charges and collects sales tax with each Renewal Payment when required to do so by your stateYour payment amount may change to the extent the rate of sales tax changes after the date of this Agreement.” As of the date of this letter, Ms [redacted] has paid a total of $toward her total of payments of $3,Her past due balance is $She must call our Collections & Recovery Department to cure her default at (801) 297-Ms [redacted] may not keep our Property without acquiring ownership of the Property according to the terms of the AgreementTell us why here

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:I made of payments not of Nothing in the response addresses the and misleading contractual language that obscures the fact that the payments will exceed $6,for an original purchase of $3300.The contract on its face is fraudulent The terms should clearly state the consequences of missing the payment What's more the State of Emergency in Georgia prevented anyone from leaving the house which led to my making the last payment on time Sincerely, [redacted]

Acima Credit, LLC (FKA Simple Finance; hereinafter “Acima,” “us,” “we,” “our”) received the complaint filed by Ms [redacted] through the Revdex.com on August 3, We have investigated the allegations and are prepared to provide the facts surrounding the transaction to fully explain the nature of the Lease-Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) and the contractual obligations of Ms*** Acima is a virtual rent-to-own company offering alternative financing for those who may not qualify for traditional financingAcima offers only one lease modelOur lease model constitutes a 12-month lease of the property to the customer wherein the customer rents the property from Acima for a period of months before acquiring ownership of the property through regularly scheduled lease renewal paymentsAs a courtesy to our customers, Acima offers two early purchase options (EPOs); each of which reduces the cost of ownership to the customer, and terminates the Agreement earlier than the 12-month contractual term contained within the Agreement On August 12, 2016, Acima purchased a queen mattress and split box (the “Property”) from Furniture Mecca (the “Merchant”), located in Philadelphia, PA, for $Ms [redacted] subsequently entered into a Lease-Purchase Agreement with Acima wherein she agreed to rent the Property through monthly payments of $plus sales tax for a term of twelve monthsIf Ms [redacted] were to hold the Agreement for the full 12-month terms, her total of payments would be $1, Our first EPO is our 90-Day EPOThe option allows our customers to purchase the property at the invoice price, plus a $initial lease payment and a $account closure fee, within the first days of the AgreementThe 90-Day EPO is our most affordable optionThe second EPO stipulates that a customer may terminate the agreement at any time by paying a lump sum equivalent to 75% of the remaining lease renewal paymentsIn order to exercise either EPO, a customer must call Acima’s Customer Service Department and initiate the payoff processAcima will not initiate an EPO payoff without appropriate consent from the customer because such action would necessarily require Acima to withdraw more than the regularly scheduled payment amount Ms [redacted] claimed, “months later they are still withdrawing from my bank account.” Acima has only withdrawn payments in the amount and on the dates, that were authorized pursuant to the AgreementMs [redacted] also states, “They did not give me paperwork about a lease agreement for months.” Acima provides a copy of the Agreement at the Merchant’s store prior to and after signing the AgreementApproximately a week after Ms [redacted] engaged in the Agreement, Acima mailed a copy of the Agreement to Ms***’s home address as provided to us on her original application As of the date of this letter, Ms [redacted] has paid a total of $1,towards her total balance of $1,Ms [redacted] put a stop payment on her bank account and is now behind one renewal payment, for a total past due balance of $If Ms [redacted] wishes to obtain ownership of the Property, she must call our Collections and Recovery Department at (801) 297-to cure the default on her account We value Ms [redacted] as a customer and greatly appreciate her businessWe hope to do business with her again in the future If Ms [redacted] requires or desires further information, we encourage her to call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-for assistance

Acima Credit, LLC (FKA: Simple Finance; hereinafter “Acima” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the RevDex.com on May 17, 2017. We have investigated the allegations and are prepared to provide all the facts surrounding the transaction to fully explain... the nature of the Lease Agreement (“Agreement”) and the contractual obligations of Ms. ***.Acima is a virtual rent-to-own organization that partners with retail merchants to provide alternative lease-purchase financing to those who may not qualify for traditional financing. On January 19, 2017, Acima purchased two (2) barstools and a sofa chaise (the “Property”) from Furniture & Electronics (the “Merchant”) for $1,078.35. Ms. [redacted] subsequently entered into a Rental-Purchase Agreement with Acima to rent the Property through bi-weekly payments of $84.61 for a term of twelve (12) months.Acima offers two early purchase options (EPOs) as a courtesy to our customers to help our customers save some money. The 90-day EPO stipulates that the lessee may purchase the Property from Acima at any time during the first ninety (90) days of the Agreement by paying the cash price of the Property, plus the initial payment, plus a $10.00 account closure fee ($1,128.35). The second EPO stipulates that the customer may terminate the Agreement by paying a lump sum equal to 75% of the remaining lease renewal payments. On April 15, 2017, Ms. [redacted] called Acima to inquire about the expiration of her 90-Day EPO. Our agent advised Ms. [redacted] her 90-Day EPO expired on April 24, 2017. Ms. [redacted] alleges she was told in February 2017 she “only owed less than [$]665.” We have no records of any telephone or email communications with Ms. [redacted] during the entire month of February 2017. She further alleges that the “charges for time of lease would be [$]2100 over 12 months. The “Total of Payments” is clearly listed in Section 2 of the Agreement as $2239.86. Section 2 states, “The Total of Payments is the amount [Ms. ***] must pay in order to acquire ownership of the Property, unless [Ms. ***] exercise[s] an early purchase option.”Ms. [redacted] has proposed paying $250.00 as a sufficient settlement of her account. Acima does not accept this option as it is not permitted within the terms of the Agreement. Ms. [redacted] is responsible for an outstanding contract balance of $942.59. The second EPO option is available to Ms. [redacted] and as of the date of this response, Ms. [redacted] is permitted to purchase the Property for $561.85. If Ms. [redacted] no longer finds the terms of the Agreement desireable, she may enact her rights to terminate in Section 8 of the Agreement by returning the Property to Acima. If Ms. [redacted] requires further information or wishes to inquire about termination options, we encourage her to call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: I never received a copy of any agreementsThe furniture store gave me a receipt with the balance due and the female worker told me that it would be paid in full in months, at $I did not receive an agreement in the mail nor did the store clerk give me oneI've done some research and this seems to be practice to deceive people into paying double for somethingI am appalled at this business tactics and will never do business with them or Mecca again Sincerely, [redacted] ***

Acima Credit is not credit but a total rip off. I bought some tires from a tire shop (or thought I had bought) it was a tire store owned by a Mexican. I told him from the start that I did not have good credit. He told me that he could get me approved for a loan to buy the tires.

I let him put on four tires (right from the start I should have run like hell). He showed me four tires that were like new but not new. I told him I wanted new tires but he in the long run talked me into the four like new tires. I was also talked into having him replace my front brakes and he did a part of my front end as well along with a alignment. All in all it came to $500.00. he got me set up with Acima credit but did all the stuff to get me what I thought was a loan on my phone for me. I did think it was a loan (not a lease).

When I got home I did see for the first time the credit contract from Acima for the first time in my e-mail. I nearly had a heart attack they had the what I thought was a loan for $500.00 with a repay charge of over a thousand dollars. I was never told about being able to pay it off in ninety days same as cash. How I found out about the 90 day pay out was from a mattress company that I am buying a mattress from. He also told me he uses Acima. I told him no way in hell would I use that company. I told him about the high cost of having them let you buy something thru them. I also told him when I questioned Acima about the amount of financing charge, I was told it was not interest but it was leasing charges.

He told me that the person selling me the tires and who did the work on the truck. That I could pay it off in 90 days. He called Acima for me and I did talk to them and informed them that I was never told about the 90 day same as cash pay out. They could have cared less that they had used a crook for there loan!

I have paid back $727.04 at this point, I still owe quite a bit more. But they will never get another cent out of me. Two hundred twenty seven dollars and four cents is more than what I would have if I had been informed about the 90 day program. So they will never get another cent out of me. I am going to force them to bring in a mediator to discuss this matter.

Don't get a loan with them, fact if you hear the name Acima Credit run out the door and don't turn back! THEY ARE NOTHING BUT BIG CROOKS THAT ABUSE PEOPLES TRUST IN LOAN COMPANY'S!

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:Acima stated that because they never received returned mail with the Lease Agreement that they "assumed" we received their correspondentWe, however, never received any correspondence from themAssumptions should never be made when conducting business and the lease agreement should have been given to us at the time of purchaseI have spoken with both an employee and a manager at the store I purchased the "Property" and neither knew of the 100% interest fee applied to the purchase price if the price was not paid off in days and therefore that information was never relayed to meMy signature was given to approve the purchase price of $without the knowledge of the extra $dollars due to the lease agreement not being available to me at the time of purchase nor the store employees relaying this fee to me due to their own ignorance of this policy Sincerely, [redacted]

Acima received Ms***’s second rejection on February 22, We have provided all facts surrounding the dispute We regret Ms [redacted] is not satisfied with the information and resolution provided However, there is nothing more Acima is willing or capable of offering IfMs [redacted] requires further information, we invite her to call our Customer Service Department at (801)297-

Acima Credit, LLC (FKA: Simple Finance; hereinafter “Acima” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the RevDex.com on February 13th, 2017. Ms. [redacted] has disputed the validity of the lease-purchase agreement (the “Agreement”) in its electronic... format, the failure to disclose properly the terms of the Agreement, and the total amount owed. We intend to explain the nature of the transaction, the facts surrounding the situation, and the contractual obligations of Ms. [redacted] .Acima is a virtual rent-to-own organization that partners with retail merchants to provide alternative lease-purchase financing to those who may not qualify for traditional financing. We purchase household goods from independent third-party merchants and offer a 12-month lease of our purchased property to consumers who are approved for our services. If a customer pays all lease renewal payments, or exercises an Early Purchase Option (“EPO”) (described below), they may acquire ownership of the property. On October 2, 2016, Ms. [redacted] applied and was approved for our leasing services through an independent third-party - Wholesale Design Warehouse (the “Merchant”) - located in Ventura, California. Acima Purchased a three-piece leather sectional (the “Property”) from the Merchant and leased the property to Ms. [redacted] for a rental period of 12 months wherein Ms. [redacted] agreed to pay $6264.63 for ownership of the Property through twice-monthly payments of $231.00. There was never a 90-day plan established with Ms. [redacted] . The Agreement identifies the total of payments owed to acquire ownership of the Property and Early Purchase Options (“EPO”) available to Ms. [redacted] if she wished to purchase the Property before the end of the 12-month rental term. The Agreement states, “[t]he total of your payments will be $6264.63 (“Total of Payments”). The Total of Payments is the amount you must pay in order to acquire ownership of the Property, unless you exercise an early purchase option as outlined herein.” The first EPO available is the 90-Day Option which allowed Ms. [redacted] to purchase the Property within the first 90 days of the Agreement by paying $3530.63. Ms. [redacted] made an initial lease payment (or down payment) of $720.63 resulting in a remaining balance on her 90-Day EPO price of $2850.00. The second EPO allows her to purchase the Property after the first 90 days by paying 50% of the total remaining periodic lease payments. In Ms. [redacted] ’s complaint, she alleges that she never saw or signed the Agreement. Acima uses an advanced authentication process whereby most lease-purchase agreements are entered into electronically. This authentication process requires customers to enter a one-time verification code that is delivered to the customer’s phone via text message, into the Merchant’s computer to electronically sign the Agreement. On October 2, 2016, Ms. [redacted] received a text message on her personal cellular phone reading, “Notice! Using this code is equal to physically signing Simple’s lease-to-own contract. Call (801) 297-1980 or toll-free at (800) 742-1789 x1 with any questions. Code 4193.” Ms. [redacted] used this code. Upon entering the code, a signature was populated on the lease agreement classifying it as a legally signed document. We have this document in our possession.Acima was not present during the transaction at the Merchant with Ms. [redacted] and as such cannot attest to Ms. [redacted] ’s claim that she did not see the Agreement prior to signing it. Notwithstanding, the Portal through which all Agreements are signed and returned to Acima provides a copy of the Agreement to be viewed electronically or printed on paper prior to signing. Ms. [redacted] had the opportunity to review the Agreement, whether she requested this option or not. Ms. [redacted] says in her complaint, “The only email I received was a welcome email. No statements got emailed or mailed out.” The Welcome Letter contained in the email Ms. [redacted] received, dated October 12, 2016, explained “In an effort to conserve paper, monthly statements are sent by request only.” Ms. [redacted] alleges in her complaint, “When I set up auto pay [Acima] did not take the money out on time.” Acima drafts automatic lease renewal payments from our customer’s bank account as listed on their application according to the customer’s paycheck schedule. We initiate a payment draft on the day it is due through an ACH network. However, payment processing can take up to three (3) business days to post on a customer’s account depending on the customer’s financial institution’s processing procedures. Ms. [redacted] only had one payment automatically withdrawn from her account on October 31, 2016 in the amount of $231.00.We have record of Ms. [redacted] calling us on five occasions. During these conversations, our agents advised Ms. [redacted] of her Agreement terms, her 90-Day expiration date of January 15, 2017, and the outstanding balances on her account. Ms. [redacted] made two additional payments of $800.00 during these conversations. Given this information, she seemed well aware of her Agreement terms and EPO expiration dates. On February 3, 2017, Ms. [redacted] called us to check her account balance. Despite having missed her 90-Day expiration date, we honored her 90-Day EPO price and allowed her to pay off her Agreement for $1749.50 with a credit card. Ms. [redacted] has asked in her desired settlement to receive a refund. The retail price of the Property is $3530.63. Ms. [redacted] has paid this amount for the Property. Acima allowed Ms. [redacted] to exercise her 90-Day EPO after it has expired even though we had no contractual obligation to do so. Therefore, Ms. [redacted] has paid for the Property without paying Acima’s finance charge. We provided a service to Ms. [redacted] , she used our service, and both sides of the Agreement were fulfilled. The business transaction is closed and Ms. [redacted] acquired ownership of the Property. Ms. [redacted] has been a good customer and we hope to do business with her again. If Ms. [redacted] requires or desires further explanation, she can call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

Simple RTO, LLC (DBA: Simple Finance, hereinafter “Simple” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the RevDex.com on October 21, 2016. We have investigated the allegations made and are prepared to provide all the facts surrounding the transaction to... fully explain the nature of the Lease agreement (“Agreement”) and the contractual obligations of Ms. ***. Simple is a virtual rent-to-own organization that partners with retail merchants to provide alternative lease-purchase financing to those who may not qualify for traditional financing. On December 28, 2015, [redacted] applied and was approved for the leasing services of Simple through an independent third-party – American Furniture Warehouse (the “Merchant”) – located in Greensboro, NC. On this same day, Ms. [redacted] signed the Agreement which describes therein the terms. Ms. [redacted] claims, “I purchased a sectional at a furniture company back in March of 2016 for $999.99, after taxes, I think it was roughly $1100.00.” We cannot comment on the negotiations between the Merchant and Ms. [redacted] as we were not a present party to the transaction. The Agreement she electronically signed states, “WE OWN THE PROPERTY. This Agreement is a lease; a lease is a legal arrangement whereby the lessee/renter (you) agrees to pay the lessor/owner of the property (us) for use of the property for a specified period of time.” and, “If you do not want to lease the Property but would rather purchase the Property now, you should consider cash or credit terms that may be available to you.” Ms. [redacted] stated, “ I would not pay all out of pocket and it would help build my credit” Simple furnishes positive and negative account information regarding every lease to DataX, a regional consumer reporting agency with whom we have a contractual obligation and responsibility to furnish consumer information. DataX is not part of the tri­-bureaus (Equifax, TransUnion, Experian). Though it is not one of the major consumer reporting agencies, DataX may have a contract with the tri-­bureaus – the terms of which, if any, are unknown to Simple. Additionally, the tri-­bureaus may have reserved the right to pull consumer information from DataX at their discretion. In the past, we have encountered situations in which consumers have claimed to have received information from the tri­-bureaus regarding their Simple account. As we did not provide that information to the tri­-bureaus, we can only presume that the information was shared by DataX. In response to those events, Simple opted to change the policy whereby we inform our consumers that the information regarding a Simple account may be reported to the tri-­bureaus. Our response is intentionally vague, as we have no contract with the tri-­bureaus and therefore no way to report information to them. This policy is designed to make sure that consumers are aware that the information could become part of the tri-­bureau report; which in our opinion is important because failing to disclose this possibility could be more damaging in certain circumstances. Ultimately, Simple only reports to DataX and cannot control what information the tri­-bureaus retrieve from them. Ms. [redacted] states that, “I called on the 90 day buy out and was told I had to pay over $1500!!!! I advised the agent that was incorrect, she argued with me over the phone, basically calling me a lair!!. So I continued to pay $82 every two weeks.” We do not have any record of this call. The 90-day option to purchase the property for the cash price of $1127.48 expired on April 3, 2016. As stated in the Agreement, “After ninety (90) days of this Agreement, you may purchase the Property by paying seventy-five (75%) percent of the total remaining periodic lease payments, plus any other charges.” We have no record of receiving any contact from Ms. [redacted] from January 02, 2016 to August 11, 2016. Simple attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] several times regarding returned payments on her account, but was unsuccessful in establishing contact. Ms. [redacted] called Simple and claimed that she did not know she was behind on payments and never received any returned check fees. The representative who received the call set up a catch-up plan for Ms. [redacted] to bring her account current by scheduling payments for 8/12/2016, 8/26/2016, 9/09/2016, and 9/23/2016. The payment scheduled for 8/12/2016 successfully cleared, but the payment scheduled for 8/26/2016 was declined. The representative who set up Ms. [redacted] ’ catch-up plan called her to resolve the failed catch-up plan. Ms. [redacted] said she would contact her bank and call us back. After not hearing back for about 4 hours, the representative tried calling Ms. [redacted] back and left a voicemail. On August 31, 2016, a regularly scheduled renewal payment of $81.29 was drafted from Ms. [redacted] ’ account. Ms. [redacted] called us on September 9, 2016 to make an additional payment of $135, but did not want to schedule any additional payments at that time. Ms. [redacted] claims, “In August, they stop taking the money out of my account. I called multiple times, never received a good reason why they stopped, I figured I was done paying since the money had stopped. In September, I start receiving calls from the collections department stating I owe over $400 past due amount. I had asked to speak with a manager, never received a call back, I tried filing a complaint, no resolution.” Simple had attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] multiple times, but she did not respond during the entire month of September. On September 9, 2016, a representative attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] again to set up additional payments, but had to leave a voicemail. On this same day, a scheduled payment in the amount of $135 was successfully drafted from Ms. [redacted] account. We do not have any record of any complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] before a complaint was filed with the BBB on October 21, 2016. On October 21, 2016, representative informed Ms. [redacted] that she must have a catch-up plan in place to avoid her regularly scheduled payments from being drafted. The representative then scheduled payments for 11/03/2016 and 11/17/2016 and informed Ms. [redacted] that she will still be behind after those payments. Ms. [redacted] stated that is all she can do at this time, so the representative left a note in Ms. [redacted] ’ file for her to be contacted again after November 17, 2016. Ms. [redacted] desired settlement is to receive a refund for a payment made, and for Simple to adjust the amount of the leased Property. Simple has refunded Ms. [redacted] her payment; however, we cannot adjust the amount of the leased Property. Ms. [redacted] signed the Agreement that clearly explained that payments of $81.29 are due bi-weekly for the duration of the 12-month lease, unless an Early Purchase Option is exercised. The deadline to exercise the 90-Day Early purchase option expired on 4/3/16. Ms. [redacted] has repeatedly breached her contract by failing to make timely lease renewal payments as agreed upon. Today, Ms. [redacted] account has a past due status. If Ms. [redacted] wishes to exercise her second Early Purchase Option, - which is a 25% discount of the remaining lease renewal payments- she may pay $774.95 to purchase the Property immediately. If Ms. [redacted] is unable to exercise her second Early Purchase Option, she will still owe Simple $873.41 for the use of the Property we leased to her. If Ms. [redacted] will contact Simple to resolve her past-due status, Simple will be willing to work with Ms. [redacted] to create catch-up plans to bring her account current.

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: I feel this situation is unfair If they want to make a settlement they can contact me either email or preferably regular mail Again let me reiterate, I am not returning the property as I have already paid more than it's total value Sincerely, [redacted] ***

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:I also filed a dispute with Experian regarding the incorrect amount that was charged off and they did not correct the error with themIf you look at the attachments, Experian had an amount owed of $and Acima told them that I now owe $instead of the $that I owe according to the email that I have from them and that you receivedThey never corrected the charged off amount as they stated in their response to you Sincerely, [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me I have spoken with Acima and they have resolved my issue to my satisfaction and I am pleased Sincerely, [redacted] ***

Acima is the mob. Stay far away from them. #predatorylending go to progressive leasing. Acima are thugs in suits they target poor folks. I am sure the owner is lowdown.

Acima credit is a rip off...Ive been trying to return my merchandise I rented so that the monthly charge would stop. I told acima to get the items, they wouldnt come, instead they keep asking me to send them pictures of the items that I have so they can determine if they are gonna even pick up the items, they say they have options...I said the inly option you have is to come pick up the merchandise. They said there is a process, its not that simple, until then I will be charged day for day even they pick it up...Do not use acima! The company is a rip off!

Worst company ever! Gave you a price and end up paying more. Do not use it!

Absolutely DON'T USE! Let me explain to you this is the worst.. if you can just save up and make your purchase.. I went to an auto store and had work done using this company to make payments thanks to GOD himself I was able to come up with money while at the counter or the auto shop could have had me arrested or my car could have been refused to be returned. I went in had my service done and when it came time to cash out they REFUSED TO PAY because I didn't have my original PHONE WITH ME! LISTEN TO WHAT I'M SAYING PEPOLE not I left my ID or my credit card to make my payment ( I had both!0 I didn't have my PHONE I had a phone they could have sent the link to but I didn't have the one I used when I set up my account you got to be kidding me. So I'm standing there service already performed and they won't pay because of a phone! Even the facility I was at which my family uses all the time was on the phone with them in complete SHOCK! Needless to say they lost a customer and the company is looking at not working with them any longer. They send so many customers through them that's just ridiculous

Simple RTO, LLC (dba: Simple Finance, hereinafter “Simple” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Ms*** *** through the Revdex.com on January 21, We have investigated the allegations made and are prepared to provide all the facts surrounding the transaction to
fully explain the nature of the Lease agreement (“Agreement”) and the contractual obligations of Ms***Simple is a virtual rent-to-own organization that partners with retail merchants to provide alternative lease-purchase financing to those who may not qualify for traditional financingOn January 2, 2017, *** *** applied and was approved for the leasing services of Simple through an independent third-party - G Liquidation Center (the “Merchant”) - located in Lawrenceville, GAOn this same day Ms*** signed the Agreement with a code sent via text message to her phoneMs*** claims, “I inquired with the sales rep about the terms and conditions of the financing (later discovered info provided was incorrect.) Partially through the app process I was told to provide her with a pin nosent via text in order to complete the application for approvalOnce approved, I was told that the terms would be emailed to me and that if I did not agree to contact the company.” We were not present at the time the lease was signed and therefore cannot confirm or deny information given to Ms*** by the MerchantHowever, the message sent to Ms***’s phone with the confirmation code read as follows: “Notice! Using this code is equal to physically signing Simple’s lease-to-own contractCall (801) 297-or toll free at (800) 742-xwith any questionsCode 3514.” Ms*** also claims that, “I called Simple Finance BEFORE the items were delivered to get complete informationI was told that my submission of the pin noto the sales rep was my agreeing on the terms and conditionsI immediately expressed my discourse because I was not given the opportunity to view the contract, nor had I received an emailed contract at the time of this conversationNevertheless, I expressed that I needed monthly payments‘No Problem’I was told call and request once the items arrived.” The first call we have record of was on January 5, when one of our representatives called Ms*** regarding a voicemail she had leftThis call was prematurely disconnected and we did not hear from Ms*** again until January 7thDuring this call, Ms*** asked why her payments were being taken bi-weekly and not monthlyShe was advised that bi-weekly payments were verified with her and that the first payment would be drafted on January 12th and another would be drafted on January 26thMs*** expressed her displeasure at not being told the terms originally and was advised that the code she was sent via text was used to sign the Agreement“I was told to call and request [the payment frequency change] once the items arrivedI did so, then was told to call back and request before the first scheduled pymt on the 12thI called on teh 11th‘No Problem’I was told that I could only make the change after the next pymt CLEAREDPymt drafted 12th...I called on the 18th and was told ‘Problem’ - it was too late to make any changes fot the next scheduled pymt on 29th because they needed days advance notice (1st time gvn this info.)” We have no record of any call from Ms*** on January 11th and can therefore neither confirm nor deny what was said in the alleged callWe did receive a call from her on January 18th to change the frequency of her payments at which point she was informed of our ten (10) day policyWe require a full ten days between the next payment due date and when we send the formOur representative told Ms*** that we could not stop the January 26th payment and that it would need to clear before we could send the frequency change formOur representative was told that the money would not be in the account and advised Ms*** that we could move the due date out a few days but that the payment would still be pulledAt this point, Ms*** requested to speak with a different representative and was transferred accordingly “I expressed my discourse and inquired of options with AndreaAgain, I requested to change my payment termsInstead she emailed a document to surrender the appliances.” The new representative (Andrea) explained our ten-day policy, prepaying the account, the 90-day option, and the lease termsOur representative again explained that the payment on January 26th would need to clear before any changes could be madeWhen Ms*** again stated that the money wouldn’t be in the account, our representative informed her that nothing could be changed unless the account was current, at which point Ms*** requested information on piof the property, which the representative emailed to her“I contacted the company on 19th and spoke with Charbree in efforts to get the correct documentAgain, I was told that it was too late for a changeI would be paying payments for the month of Jan and that Feb I could begin paying monthly.” On January 19th, Ms*** called to express a desire for monthly payments, dissatisfaction with the text message confirmation code, and reject the merchandise pirequest. Our representative informed Ms*** that she cannot skip her January 26th payment, and doing so would put the account behindMs*** then requested to move the payment on the 26th to the 31st and then switch to monthly payments beginning on February 10thOur representative emailed and processed the payment frequency change form on January 20th“This company deceptively bonds consumers into contract terms via text message pin number without allowing consumers to read terms/conditions prior to acceptanceOnce the terms are disputed, the consumer’s only recourse is to retrieve the appliances, while wihthholding all funds paid.” We had no reason to believe Ms*** had not read the entirety of the text sent to her explaining that using the code equated to signing the Agreement Therefore, upon receipt of the confirmation code via text message, we initiated the contract. We have explained the terms of the Agreement to Ms*** and subsequently processed her payment frequency change requestIf Ms*** requires, or desires, more explanation, she can call our customer service department at (801) 297-

Simple Finance (Simple, we, us) received the complaint filed by Ms*** *** on December 1, We have reviewed this complaint, as well as Ms***’s account with usMs*** states: “(Simple) want(s) the customer to pay off the loan within days of purchaseWhen the customer does
not pay off the loan in days, they add 100% interest onto the loan.” While we do offer customers an option to pay off their lease in days for a lesser price, it is not a requirement, and our actual lease term is in fact monthsThis option is outlined in the Agreement as follows: “90-Day Buyout: You may choose to purchase the Property at any time during the first ninety (90) days of this Agreement by paying $("90-Day Buyout").” If a customer is unable to pay off their lease within the 90-Day period, they may exercise another Early Purchase Option, which is outlined as follows: “Early Payoff: After ninety (90) days of this Agreement, you may purchase the Property by paying seventy-five (75%) percent of the total remaining periodic lease payments, plus any other chargesYou must be current in your payments to exercise an early purchase option.” If a customer does not exercise either option, they must pay to rent the property until they obtain ownership rights, which we assume Ms*** is referring to as “interest.” Simple Finance has no record of receiving any contact from Ms*** throughout her lease until November 30, 2016, when she called to inquire after her balanceShe was unhappy to learn that she was in the full term of her contract and that the balance remaining to be paid was $Had we known that Ms*** did not understand the terms of her Agreement, one of our Customer Service representatives would have been more than happy to explain Ms***’s options to herSince we did not receive any prior contact from Ms***, we were under the impression that she understood the conditions of her Agreement with usMs*** also alleges: “They also forge the signature of the customer.” Upon approving Ms***’s application, Simple initiated an SMS text message to Ms*** containing a four-digit personal identification number (the “PIN”) to be used as Ms***’s electronic authorization of the AgreementMs*** provided the PIN number to the Merchant’s associate who used it to accept and acknowledge the Agreement on behalf of Ms***When the PIN was returned to Simple, a pre-designed signature baring the name of Ms*** was populated on the Agreement to indicate that the Agreement had been authorized electronically[1]At this time, Ms*** may exercise an Early Purchase Option by paying $376.53, which is 75% of her remaining balance of $502.04, or she may continue to make her regularly scheduled renewal payments[1] Pursuant to the ESIGN Act of 2000, a contract may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature was used in its formation

Acima Credit, LLC (hereinafter “Acima”) received the complaint filed by Ms*** *** through the Revdex.com on April 30, We have investigated her complaint and prepared a response below Acima is a virtual rent-to-own company offering alternative financing for those who
may not qualify for traditional financing Acima offers only one lease model, which is a 12-month lease. The Acima lease program allows the customer to select property from an independent third-party merchant and Acima Purchases the property from the merchant The customer takes possession of the property and leases it from Acima until all the scheduled lease renewal payments have been made. After all payments have been made, the Agreement is satisfied, and the customer owns the property As a courtesy to our customers, Acima offers two early purchase options (“EPOs”); each of which reduces the cost of ownership to the customer and satisfies the Agreement earlier than the 12-month contractual term contained within the Agreement The first option is a 90-Day EPO This option allows our customers to purchase the property within the first days of the Agreement at the invoice price, plus a $initial payment, and a $account closure fee (the “Acima Cash Price”) The second EPO stipulates that a customer may terminate the Agreement at any time after the first days of the Agreement by paying a lump sum equivalent to 50% of the remaining lease renewal payments Ms*** entered into a lease-purchase agreement (the “Agreement”) with Acima on October 2, 2017, wherein she agreed to rent a king bed and mattress set, and two twin beds and mattresses through twice-monthly payments of $(not including tax) for a total of $4,to acquire ownership of the propertyMs***’s regularly scheduled renewal payment, including sales tax, was $ Ms***’s 90-Day EPO expired on January 22, On January 31, 2018, Ms*** contact Acima to inquire about her remaining balanceShe was notified during that conversation that her 90-Day EPO had expired but she still had the option to exercise her second EPO On March 19, 2018, Ms*** called Acima to change her banking information; however, at the time, she had a pending payment on her account and could not change the payment informationThe representative with whom she spoke, notified her she would need to call Acima after the payment cleared to update the payment informationThe Acima representative advised Ms*** that if the pending payment returned to us unpaid, she would be assessed a Non-Sufficient Fund (NSF) fee, as contracted for in the AgreementMs***’s March 19th payment did not return to us unpaidAfter March 19th, Ms*** never called Acima again to update her payment information On April 19th, Ms*** failed to make a renewal payment, and was assessed an NSF fee of $20.00, and a late fee of $Ultimately, Ms*** exercised her second early purchase option and paid a total of $3,to acquire ownership of the PropertyShe was assessed a total of $in late and NSF feesThe fees assessed to Ms***’s account were contracted for under the Agreement