Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Invasion of Privacy Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition
Law. One of these four plaintiffs additionally brings a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The fifth
plaintiff brings claims for common-law unjust enrichment and violations of New York’s General Business Law. Four of these
cases were originally filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("NDCA) (Cases No. 3:23-
cv-00501; 3:23-cv-00744; 3:23-cv-00940; and 4:23-cv-01293). One case was originally filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:23-cv-00943); however, that case was voluntarily dismissed and re-
filed in the NDCA (Case No. 3:23-cv-01508). These five matters have been consolidated and assigned to U.S. District Judge
Araceli Martínez-Olguín in the NDCA. The court also set a briefing schedule for filing a single consolidated complaint, which
the plaintiffs filed on May 21, 2023 (Case No. 3:23-cv-00501-AMO; the "NDCA Class Action Matter"), as well as motions to
dismiss and motions to compel arbitration. In addition to the aforementioned claims, the plaintiffs in the now consolidated
matter bring claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, common law negligence and
negligence per se, in each case, pleaded in the alternative. The plaintiffs are seeking various forms of monetary damages
(such as statutory damages, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and disgorgement of profits) as well as injunctive
relief. Briefing on the motions to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration was completed on August 24, 2023.
On October 27, 2023, six plaintiffs filed a class action complaint (Case No. 1:23-cv-24127-BB; the “SDFL Class Action
Matter”) against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"). The plaintiffs alleged, on
behalf of the same nationwide class as the NDCA Class Action Matter, substantially the same statutory and common law
violation claims as alleged in that matter as well as claims based on the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
invasion of privacy under California common law and the California constitution, invasion of privacy under New Jersey's
Constitution, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, Florida’s Security of
Communications Act, New York’s Civil Rights Law and Stop Hack and Improve Electronic Data Security Act. The plaintiffs in
the SDFL Class Action Matter seek various forms of monetary damages as well as injunctive and other unspecified equitable
relief.
On October 27, 2023, we entered into a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action
Matter, on behalf of a nationwide settlement class that includes the NDCA Class Action Matter, which provides for a payment
of $13.0 million by us. On October 30, 2023, the plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action Matter filed a motion and memorandum
in support of preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement and, on October 31, 2023, the SDFL granted
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The proposed settlement is subject to final approval of the court. Members
of the class have the opportunity to opt-out of the class and commence their own actions.
In response to the proposed settlement in the SDFL Class Action Matter, plaintiffs in the NDCA Class Action Matter filed
(i) on November 1, 2023, a motion in the NDCA for an order to require us to cease litigation of, or alternatively file a motion
to stay in, the SDFL Class Action Matter and enjoin us from seeking settlement with counsel other than plaintiffs’ counsel in
the NDCA Class Action Matter; and (ii) on November 2, 2023, a motion in the SDFL for that court to allow them to intervene
and appear in the SDFL action, transfer the SDFL Class Action Matter to the NDCA and reconsider and deny its preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement. The SDFL has issued an order requiring the SDFL plaintiffs to, among other things, file
a response to the NDCA plaintiffs' motion to intervene. Additionally, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in the NDCA
issued an order for us to show cause as to why we should not be sanctioned for an alleged failure to provide notification to
the NDCA of the pendency of the SDFL Class Action Matter. We filed our written response to this order on November 8,
2023. The NDCA held a hearing on November 14, 2023, and ordered parties to the litigation to participate in mediation. The
parties participated in mediation on January 10, 2024, and have agreed to participate in an additional day of mediation,
which occurred on March 7, 2024. Negotiations between the parties remain ongoing.
Based on the proposed settlement agreement, we determined that an estimated $13.0 million loss was probable and
accrued $12.5 million as of December 31, 2023, net of an initial $0.5 million payment to a third-party qualified settlement
fund that we do not own that will be disbursed to the plaintiffs if required conditions are satisfied. Based on ongoing
negotiations and mediation between the parties, we determined the estimated probable loss to be $28.0 million and
recognized the incremental loss during the three months ended March 31, 2024. The $27.5 million estimated net liability
remains accrued within accrued expenses and other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
September 30, 2024. While this amount represents our best judgment of the probable loss based on the information
currently available to us, it is subject to significant judgments and estimates and numerous factors beyond our control,
including, without limitation, final approval of the court or the results of mediation. In addition, while it is reasonably possible
an incremental loss may have been incurred for the indemnification of certain parties named in the class action lawsuits, a
loss, or a range of loss, is not reasonably estimable. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and upon final
resolution of these matters, it is reasonably possible that the actual loss may differ from our estimate.
On April 22, 2024, Lisa Marie Barsuli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
(Case No. 2:24-cv-3282). The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and equitable relief as well as interest, fees and costs.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and asserts that we and certain of our executive officers failed to disclose to investors the risk relating to a grocery chain
taking actions that impacted acceptance of our discounted pricing for a subset of prescription drugs from PBMs, whose
pricing we promote on our platform (the “grocer issue”), which occurred late in the first quarter of 2022. As alleged in the
complaint, when we disclosed the occurrence of the grocer issue, our stock price fell, causing investor losses. On July 25,
2024, U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr. appointed The Kalmanson Family as the lead plaintiff and approved selection of