Consumer complaint received 2025-12-15 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:
This complaint concerns repeated false statements, misrepresentation, and improper fee collection practices by Acima Leasing. Acima has assessed NSF fees in situations where no NSF event occurred, misrepresented the contractual basis for those fees, and continued the same conduct even after prior CFPB complaints and written responses. The pattern reflects a systemic issue rather than an isolated billing error. 

First occurrence XXXX XXXX XXXX A scheduled debit card payment was declined by my bank due to a fraud block, not insufficient funds. No payment was transmitted, no settlement occurred, and no bank returned any payment unpaid. I manually made the payment the following day. Despite this, Acima attempted to assess an NSF fee. 

In its written CFPB response dated XX/XX/year>, Acima stated that regardless of payment method, failed payments may accrue an NSF fee. This statement is false and misleading. Under standard banking definitions, card network rules, and Acimas own lease agreement, an NSF fee requires a payment to be returned unpaid. A debit card fraud decline is a pre-authorization failure and does not constitute a returned payment. Acima nevertheless removed the fee but characterized the correction as a one-time courtesy, refusing to acknowledge that the fee was never authorized under the contract. 

Second occurrence XX/XX/year> The exact same issue occurred again. A scheduled debit card payment was declined due to a fraud block, not insufficient funds. Again, no payment was returned by any bank. Despite this, Acima immediately assessed a {$25.00} NSF fee on the actual payment due date while the account still showed XXXX days past due. I manually made the payment later the same day. 

When I contacted Acima via chat on XX/XX/XXXX, representatives repeated the same explanation, stating that any failed payment attempt constitutes an NSF event regardless of payment method or reason. They refused to distinguish between an ACH return and a debit card fraud decline, refused to resolve the issue in writing, and declined to take corrective action. 

Acimas second CFPB response and discrepancies In its second CFPB response dated XX/XX/year>, Acima again asserted that the NSF fee resulted from a returned payment. This assertion is inaccurate and unsupported. Acima provided no bank return notice, no ACH return code, no card network documentation, and no evidence that any payment was returned unpaid. A fraud-declined debit card transaction does not generate a returned payment under banking or card network standards. 

Acimas response misrepresents the lease agreement by substituting the contractual requirement that a payment be returned unpaid with a broader and undefined concept of a failed payment. The lease agreement authorizes NSF fees only when a payment is returned unpaid. It does not authorize NSF fees for debit card declines caused by fraud blocks, authorization failures, network errors, or other non-fund-related reasons. 

Acima also failed to address the timing issue entirely. The NSF fee was assessed on the actual payment due date while the account still showed XXXX days past due. A payment can not be late or returned on the same day it is due. This omission is material and further undermines Acimas explanation.

Legal and regulatory concerns Acimas conduct raises serious concerns under federal and state consumer protection laws. Misrepresenting the nature of a fee and the contractual basis for collecting it constitutes a deceptive practice when consumers are led to believe an amount is legally owed when it is not. 

Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5531 and 5536, covered persons are prohibited from engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. A practice is deceptive if it is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer about a material term. Representing that an NSF fee is authorized when no payment was returned unpaid meets this standard.

Similarly, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ), prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. The FTC has consistently treated the assessment of fees not authorized by contract and the misrepresentation of fee triggers as deceptive conduct.

Under Texas law, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Business and Commerce Code 17.46 ( b ), prohibits false, misleading, or deceptive acts, including representing that an agreement confers rights or obligations it does not and failing to disclose material facts necessary to prevent consumer deception. Charging an NSF fee without a returned payment and misrepresenting the contractual basis for that fee falls squarely within these prohibitions. 

From a banking and payment systems perspective, an NSF event requires that a payment be presented and returned unpaid by a financial institution. Debit card fraud declines occur prior to settlement and do not result in returned payments. Using the term NSF to describe a fraud-blocked debit card transaction is materially misleading. 

Prior regulatory involvement Acima has previously been the subject of regulatory and enforcement actions involving deceptive or misleading practices related to lease terms and fees, including prior actions by federal and state regulators. I reference this history solely for context, as the conduct described in this complaint appears consistent with previously identified compliance concerns and suggests a failure to correct known issues. 

Pattern and revenue implications Despite prior CFPB involvement and fee reversal, Acima repeated the same conduct and explanations. Acimas written responses consistently attempt to broaden the definition of NSF to include any failed payment attempt, regardless of method or cause. This interpretation is not supported by the contract, banking standards, or law. 

By classifying debit card declines as NSF events, Acima effectively enables automatic {$25.00} fee assessments in a wide range of circumstances beyond the consumers control. This practice appears to function as a revenue-generating mechanism rather than a legitimate contractual safeguard. Consumers are likely misled into believing these fees are valid and owed when they are not. 

Acimas repeated written statements to the CFPB and to me contain material misrepresentations, prevent meaningful dispute resolution, and result in repeated attempts to collect fees not owed.

Notice of additional filings Given the repeated nature of this conduct and Acimas refusal to correct or acknowledge the issue, I am also submitting complaints to the Texas Attorney Generals Office and the XXXX XXXX XXXX  to ensure appropriate review of these practices and to prevent continued consumer harm.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief