Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Aside from the below, as of September 30, 2024 , there were no material changes to our commitments and contingencies as disclosed in the notes to our consolidated financial statements included in our 2023 10-K. Between February 2, 2023, and March 30, 2023, five individual plaintiffs filed five separate putative class actions lawsuits against Google, Meta, Criteo and us, alleging generally that we have not adequately protected consumer privacy and that we communicated consumer information to third parties, including the three co-defendants. Four of the plaintiffs allege common law intrusion upon seclusion and unjust enrichment claims, as well as claims under California’s 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, a nd 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 lead plaintiff's counsel. We intend to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Additionally, on various dates between May 23, 2024 and November 6, 2024 , alleged stockholders Benjamin Solomon (Case No. 2:24-cv-04301), Joseph Caetano (Case No. 2:24-cv-06993), Colby Mayes (Case No. 2:24-cv-07264), Sharon Burgs (Case No. 2:24-cv-07281), and Stephen Bushansky (Case No. 2:24-cv-09611) each filed separate derivative lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in each case, purportedly on behalf of us against certain of our current and former executive officers and directors. The derivative complaints assert various claims, including for violations of, and contribution under, the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste and violations of insider trading laws. The claims in each of these derivative lawsuits are based on allegations substantially similar to those in the class action lawsuit described above and also allege that we failed to maintain adequate internal controls. The plaintiffs in these derivative lawsuits are seeking declaratory relief, monetary damages, restitution, disgorgement of alleged illegal profits and/or certain governance reforms. We intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the securities class action and derivative lawsuits. We believe we have meritorious defenses to such claims and based upon information presently known to management, we have not accrued a loss for these lawsuits as a loss is not probable nor reasonably estimable. While it is reasonably possible a loss may have been incurred, we are unable to estimate a loss or range of loss in these matters. These pending proceedings involve complex questions of fact and law and may require the expenditure of significant funds and the diversion of other resources to defend. In addition, during the normal course of business, we may become subject to, and are presently involved in, legal proceedings, claims and litigation. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. We have not accrued for a loss for any other matters as a loss is not probable and a loss, or a range of loss, is not reasonably estimable. Accruals for loss contingencies are recognized when a loss is probable, and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. See "Note 4 . Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities ." Loss recoveries are recognized when a loss has been incurred and the recovery is probable. See "Note 3 . Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets ." In February 2023, we initiated arbitration against Famulus Health, LLC (“Famulus”) before the American Arbitration Association in relation to Famulus’ breach of an agreement entered into by Famulus and us in June 2020, as amended (the “Agreement”). GoodRx asserted claims for Famulus' breach of the confidentiality and exclusivity provisions in the Agreement, seeking to recover damages and injunctive relief. On February 15, 2024, an arbitration award was rendered, which included a damages award and a permanent injunction (the "Arbitration Award"). Famulus filed a petition to vacate the Arbitration Award on February 21, 2024 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina ("DSC"). GoodRx filed a petition to confirm the Arbitration Award on February 22, 2024 in the DSC. In April 2024, several motions and oppositions were filed, which were consolidated by the DSC on April 12, 2024. On September 11, 2024, the DSC entered an opinion and order denying Famulus’s motion to vacate the Arbitration Award and granting GoodRx’s motion to confirm the Arbitration Award as modified by the DSC. On October 11, 2024, GoodRx filed an application for writ of execution in the DSC. The writ, once issued, will direct a U.S. Marshal of the District of South Carolina to levy Famulus’s property in execution of GoodRx’s judgment. We can not make any assurance as to the outcome of the Arbitration Award and when the Arbitration Award will be collected. Any gain on this matter is considered a gain contingency and will be recognized in the period in which the Arbitration Award is realized or realizable, pursuant to ASC 450, Contingencies . |