Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation The Company, in the ordinary course of business, is a party to various legal and regulatory proceedings and other general claims. Although no assurances can be given, in management’s opinion, such outstanding proceedings are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all of the claims described below, and intends to vigorously defend against such claims. However, legal and regulatory proceedings involve an inherent level of uncertainty and no assurances can be given regarding the ultimate outcome of any such matters or whether an adverse outcome would not have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. At this stage, the Company is unable to determine whether a future loss will be incurred for any of its outstanding legal and regulatory proceedings or estimate a range of loss with respect to such proceeding, if any, and accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the Company’s financial statements for legal and regulatory proceedings. 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, including that the Company 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. On June 8, 2022, the Company and named defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending. 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. 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 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. On October 24, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit due to the funding structure of the CFPB, which the motion alleges is unconstitutional. This motion to dismiss follows the recent decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas sits, finding that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured. The motion to dismiss remains pending. On November 7, 2018, plaintiffs Maria Andrade and Shaun Caulkins filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against AFF alleging that AFF is an unlicensed lender that made usurious loans through certain California merchants in violation of California law. Caulkins was dismissed on October 14, 2020, and the Court denied class certification in September 2022. The case is scheduled to proceed to trial on an individual basis on February 21, 2023. In addition to money damages, including disgorgement of all amounts paid to AFF, actual and statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees, Andrade seeks to enjoin AFF from servicing California customers under its current practices. On October 20, 2021, plaintiff Larry Facio filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against AFF alleging 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. At this time, Mr. Facio has not yet elected to pursue his claims through arbitration.