Commitment and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Commitment and Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Repurchase Obligation Under the normal terms of our whole loans sales to third-party investors, we may become obligated to repurchase loans from investors in certain instances where a breach in representation and warranties is identified. Generally, a breach in representation and warranties could occur where a loan has been identified as subject to verified or suspected fraud, or in cases where a loan was serviced or originated in violation of Affirm’s guidelines. We would only experience a loss if the contractual repurchase price of the loan exceeds the fair value on the repurchase date. This amount was not material as of June 30, 2023. Legal Proceedings From time to time, we are subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. The results of such matters often cannot be predicted with certainty. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, we establish an accrued liability for legal proceedings and claims when those matters present loss contingencies which are both probable and reasonably estimable. Toole v. Affirm Holdings, Inc. On February 28, 2022, plaintiff Jeffrey Toole filed a putative class action against Affirm and Max Levchin in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Toole action”). The Toole action alleged that Affirm violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing and then subsequently deleting a tweet from its official Twitter account on February 10, 2022, which omitted full details of Affirm’s second quarter fiscal 2022 financial results. Plaintiff sought class certification, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and costs and expenses. On September 28, 2022, the Court granted Affirm’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with leave to amend within 21 days. No amended complaint was filed by the deadline. On October 20, 2022, the Court dismissed the putative class action and entered judgment in Affirm’s favor. Vallieres v Levchin, et al. On April 25, 2022, plaintiff Michael Vallieres filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Vallieres action”) against Affirm, as a nominal defendant, and certain of Affirm’s current officers and directors as defendants based on allegations substantially similar to those in the Toole action. The Vallieres complaint purported to assert claims on Affirm's behalf for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, and contribution under the federal securities laws, and sought corporate reforms, unspecified damages and restitution, and fees and costs. On January 12, 2023, the Court dismissed the derivative action without prejudice. Williams v. Levchin, et al. On September 16, 2022, plaintiff Ron Williams filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Williams action”) against Affirm, as a nominal defendant, and certain of Affirm’s current and former officers and directors as defendants based on allegations substantially similar to those in the Toole action and Vallieres action. The Williams complaint purported to assert six causes of action on Affirm's behalf—violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The plaintiff in the Williams action also alleged a cause of action against defendant Levchin for contribution under 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. The Williams complaint sought corporate reforms, unspecified damages and restitution, and fees and costs. On December 22, 2022, the Court dismissed the derivative action without prejudice. Kusnier v. Affirm Holdings, Inc. On December 8, 2022, plaintiff Mark Kusnier filed a putative class action lawsuit against Affirm, Max Levchin, and Michael Linford in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Kusnier action”). Plaintiff’s amended complaint filed on May 5, 2023 alleges that defendants: (i) caused Affirm to make materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Affirm’s BNPL service facilitated excessive consumer debt (including with respect to certain for-profit educational institutions), regulatory arbitrage, and data harvesting; (ii) made false and/or misleading statements about certain public regulatory actions; and (iii) made false and/or misleading statements about whether Affirm’s business model was vulnerable to interest rate changes. In light of the above, plaintiff asserts that Affirm violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Levchin and Linford violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and costs and expenses. Quiroga v. Levchin, et al. On March 29, 2023, plaintiff John Quiroga filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Quiroga action”) against Affirm, as a nominal defendant, and certain of Affirm's current officers and directors as defendants based on allegations substantially similar to those in the Kusnier action. The Quiroga complaint purports to assert claims on Affirm's behalf for contribution under the federal securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks corporate reforms, unspecified damages and restitution, and fees and costs. On May 1, 2023, the action was stayed by agreement of the parties. The stay can be lifted at the request of either party or upon certain conditions relating to the resolution of the Kusnier action. Jeffries v. Levchin, et al. On May 24, 2023, plaintiff Sabrina Jeffries filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Affirm, as a nominal defendant, and certain of Affirm's current officers and directors as defendants based on allegations substantially similar to those in the Kusnier and Quiroga actions. The Jeffries complaint purports to assert claims on Affirm's behalf for breach of fiduciary duties, making false statements under federal securities law, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, and seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, and fees and costs. On August 15, 2023, the action was stayed by agreement of the parties. The stay can be lifted at the request of either party or upon certain conditions relating to the resolution of the Kusnier action. We have determined, based on current knowledge, that the aggregate amount or range of losses that are estimable with respect to our legal proceedings, including the matters described above, would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Amounts accrued as of June 30, 2023 and June 30, 2022 were not material. The ultimate outcome of legal proceedings involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties, and cannot be predicted with certainty. Purchase Commitments During the year ended June 30, 2023, we entered into non-cancelable purchase obligations with our third-party cloud computing web services provider, which included annual purchase commitments for the period from March 2023 through February 2030, and an additional aggregate purchase commitment of $650.0 million during such period. For the years ended June 30, 2023 and 2022, we had remaining purchase commitments of $659.2 million and $37.1 million, respectively, primarily related to cloud and hosting services. If we fail to meet any of the purchase commitments, we will be required to pay the difference. We pay our cloud-computing web services provider monthly, and we may pay more than the minimum purchase commitment based on usage.