Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation The Company, in the ordinary course of business, is a defendant (actual or threatened) in certain lawsuits, arbitration proceedings and other general claims. Although no assurances can be given, in management’s opinion, any potential adverse result should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. On January 14, 2022, plaintiff Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System filed a putative shareholder securities class action lawsuit (the “Litigation”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and certain of its current officers styled Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System v. FirstCash Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-00033-P (N.D. Tex.). The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to investors. The complaint further alleges that the defendants failed to disclose in public statements that the Company engaged in widespread and systemic violations of the Military Lending Act (the “MLA”). The Litigation does not quantify any alleged damages, but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, it seeks to recover damages on behalf of the plaintiff and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company stock during the putative class period from February 1, 2018 through November 12, 2021 at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend the Litigation vigorously. On April 4, 2022, following the appointment of a lead plaintiff, the Court entered an order setting certain case deadlines for the filing of an amended complaint and any responsive pleading thereto. On June 8, 2022, the Company and named defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending. At this stage, the Company is unable to determine whether a future loss will be incurred due to this Litigation or estimate a range of loss, if any, and accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the Company’s financial statements. The Company was named as a nominal defendant and certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers were named as defendants in a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed on July 19, 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and styled Treppel Family Trust U/A 08/18/18 Lawrence A. Treppel and Geri D. Treppel for the Benefit of Geri D. Treppel and Larry A. Treppel, Derivatively on Behalf of FirstCash Holdings, Inc., v. Rick L. Wessel, et. al, Case 4:22-cv-00623-P (N.D. Tex). The complaint makes similar allegations as the Litigation and alleges a single count for breach of fiduciary duty against the named derivative defendants. The action does not quantify any alleged damages, but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs and certain equitable relief, the derivative plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Company for purported financial harm and to have the court order changes in the Company’s corporate governance. The named derivative defendants and the Company dispute these allegations and intend to defend the action vigorously. On November 12, 2021, the CFPB initiated a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against FirstCash, Inc. and Cash America West, Inc., two of the Company’s subsidiaries, alleging violations of the MLA in connection with pawn transactions. The CFPB also alleges that these same alleged violations of the MLA also constitute breaches of a 2013 CFPB consent order entered into by its predecessor company that, among other things, allegedly required the company and its successors to cease and desist from further MLA violations. The CFPB is seeking an injunction, redress for affected borrowers and a civil monetary penalty. On March 28, 2022, the CFPB filed a motion to strike certain affirmative defenses of the Company, which motion remains pending. On April 27, 2022, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which remains pending. While the Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the case, the Company cannot predict or determine the timing or final outcome of this matter or the effect that any adverse determinations the lawsuit may have on the Company. On November 7, 2018, plaintiffs Maria Andrade and Shaun Caulkins filed a complaint (the “Andrade Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against AFF. In the Andrade Complaint, the plaintiffs allege that AFF partnered with California merchants to deceive California customers into taking out usurious loans made from AFF, an unlicensed lender. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and a class of all California residents who purchased consumer goods or services from AFF’s partner retail businesses. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, class certification, a declaration that AFF’s security agreements are void and uncollectible, restitution of all amounts collected from class members, actual damages, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff Caulkins’ claims were dismissed in October 2020 and co-defendants were dismissed from the complaint in August 2021. The class certification motion hearing is set for August 15, 2022. At this time, the Company cannot predict or determine the timing or final outcome of the Andrade Complaint or the effect that any adverse determinations the lawsuit may have on the Company. On October 20, 2021, plaintiff Larry Facio filed a complaint (the “Facio Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against AFF. In the Facio Complaint, the plaintiff alleges that AFF partnered with California merchants to deceive California customers into taking out usurious loans made from AFF, an unlicensed lender. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, class certification, a declaration that AFF’s security agreements are subject to the California Finance Lenders Law and that no person has a right to collect or receive principal or payments, restitution for all amounts collected from class members, actual damages, statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. On May 5, 2022, the court granted AFF’s motion to compel arbitration, and the case is currently stayed, pending arbitration. Accordingly, the Company cannot predict or determine the timing or final outcome of the Facio Complaint or the effect that any adverse determinations the lawsuit may have on the Company.