Miller v. Acima Digital Leasing Class Action
Last verified September 18, 2026Source: courtlistener-litigationHow ClaimWatch verifies cases
This case was recently filed and is being litigated — the claims below are allegations, not proven facts, and there is no settlement, claim form, or payout yet. Watch the case (right) and we'll email you when it moves, including if it settles and a claim process opens.
What happened
A proposed class action has been filed against Acima Digital, LLC (doing business as Acima Leasing), a company that appears to operate in the lease-to-own or consumer finance space. The complaint includes references to GAO (Government Accountability Office) recommendations, suggesting the allegations may concern regulatory compliance or consumer protection issues related to the company's leasing or financing practices.
Do you qualify?
No settlement exists yet, so there is nothing to file and no class definition to check. If the case settles, the settlement will define exactly who qualifies — watch this case and we'll let you know.
How to file
There is no claim to file yet. If this case reaches a settlement, a claim process will open — usually with an official settlement website and a filing deadline.
Common questions
- Can I file a claim in the Miller v. Acima Digital Leasing Class Action case?
- No. This case has been filed and is still being litigated — there is no settlement, no claim form, and no payout. Many class actions are dismissed or never certified, so a case being filed does not mean anyone will be paid. If it settles and a claim process opens, that will be announced by a court-appointed settlement administrator.
- Where is the Miller v. Acima Digital Leasing Class Action case being heard?
- The case is before the District Court, D. Utah, case number 2:26-cv-00802. Everything alleged in the complaint is an allegation, not a proven fact.
New to class actions?
This summary was generated from public settlement documents and may contain errors. Confirm eligibility, deadlines, and payment terms on the official settlement website before filing. ClaimWatch is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. Filing a claim is free.
More finance settlements
View all →Brimmer v. City of Overland Special Deterrent Fees Settlement
The City of Overland charged individuals Special Deterrent Fees. The court has approved a settlement requiring the city to refund these fees to eligible class members.
Up to $80
Non-Bank ATM Surcharge Settlement
Visa and Mastercard allegedly violated antitrust laws by creating operating rules that prohibited independent ATM operators from charging lower access fees for transactions on competing networks. This forced cardholders to pay higher ATM surcharges than necessary. Visa and Mastercard deny the claims.
…moreSettlement Fund will be distributed proportionally (pro rata) to each valid claimant after deductions for attorneys' fees (up to 30%), litigation costs, notice and administration costs, and service awards (up to $17,500 per class representative)
Visa and Mastercard ATM Access Fees Class Action Settlement
Visa and Mastercard are accused of charging cardholders excessive access fees for cash withdrawals at independent ATMs (ATMs not owned by Visa, Mastercard, banks, or other financial institutions). Claimants allege the payment networks' operating rules constituted price fixing and violated federal and state antitrust laws by enabling higher ATM fees than should have been charged. Visa and Mastercard deny wrongdoing but have agreed to settle.
…moreEach eligible claimant will receive a share of the net settlement fund based on the number of eligible surcharged transactions they submit.
CFPB v. Tempoe LLC - Consumer Lease Settlement
Tempoe, LLC, a consumer finance leasing company, engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by failing to provide required additional disclosures to consumers whose leases were extended on a month-to-month basis for more than six months after the initial term. On September 11, 2023, the CFPB issued a consent order imposing a permanent ban on consumer leasing and a $2 million penalty.
…more