Consumer complaint received 2025-11-22 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: ACIMA CREDIT, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, my regularly scheduled Acima lease payment of {$18.00} became due. My payment method on file is a debit card, not a checking account and not an ACH authorization. When Acima attempted to process the debit card payment, my bank declined the card transaction due to fraud-prevention protocols. This was not an insufficient-funds situation, not an ACH return, and not a consumer-initiated stop payment or revocation. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, when I attempted to use my debit card at a store, it was declined. Only at that moment did I realize the bank had blocked the card for suspected fraud, which explained why the Acima payment did not process. I had no prior knowledge of the block until the in-store decline. 

When I logged into my Acima account shortly afterward, I noticed that my amount due had been increased from {$18.00} to {$42.00}. Initially, I believed the increase must have been a late fee, as that would be the only charge that might appear after a missed payment. I contacted Acima and politely asked if the fee could be waived, explaining that the failed payment occurred because my bank had blocked the card for fraud and I had only just discovered it. 

The representative told me that a late fee can only be removed on the same day it is assessed. I explained that this made no sense because the payment was due on XX/XX/XXXX, and a payment can not be late on the exact day it is due. Under any reasonable billing system, a late fee can not legally or logically attach until at least the following day. When confronted with this inconsistency, the representative changed the explanation and claimed the extra amount was actually an NSF fee, not a late fee. 

This explanation made no sense for several reasons : An NSF event can not occur for a debit card transaction. NSF fees apply only to returned ACH transfers reported by a bank as insufficient funds. My autopay is set with a debit card, not a checking account. 

A fraud-blocked debit card decline is not an NSF condition XXXX any banking standard. 

No XXXX transaction occurred, so an NSF event was impossible. 

A fee generated on the same day payment was due can not be an NSF fee or a late fee. 

Despite these facts, Acima refused to reverse the improper fee and provided no lawful justification for attempting to collect {$42.00} instead of {$18.00}. 

This conduct appears to constitute : 1. Deceptive acts or practices under 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( a ) and 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) because Acima misrepresented the nature of the transaction failure, falsely labeled a fraud-blocked debit card decline as NSF, and attempted to collect an amount not actually owed. 

2. Unfair acts or practices under 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) because the unexpected and unlawful fee caused unavoidable consumer harm and provided no countervailing benefit. 

3. Abusive acts or practices under 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ) because Acima took unreasonable advantage of the consumers lack of familiarity with the distinctions between debit declines and ACH returns. 

Acimas refusal to correct an unlawful fee after notice further aggravates the harm. The company has previously been subject to enforcement actions, including : CFPB XXXX Acima ( XXXX ) involving deceptive payment-processing practices New York Attorney General XXXX Acima ( XXXX ) involving unlawful fees and misleading rent-to-own practices To avoid delinquency during this dispute, I paid the correct amount, {$18.00}, through a custom payment. However, I dispute the remaining balance created solely by Acimas improper and unlawful fee. 

Requested Relief : I request that the CFPB require Acima to : Reverse the improper NSF fee and any associated charges. 

Restore my account to the correct balance. 

Provide written confirmation that no negative reporting or collections activity will result from this dispute. 

Review internal systems to ensure debit-card declines are not improperly treated as NSF events XXXX 

Ensure compliance with the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ). 

I can provide documentation including screenshots, chat transcripts, and bank evidence confirming the transaction was not an NSF event.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief