Form 10-Q for Autobytel, Inc.

Check whether the registrant: (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ¨ No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes x No ¨

As of July 31, 2005, there were 41,914,829 shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding.

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

Autobytel Inc. (Autobytel) is an automotive marketing services company that helps dealers sell cars and manufacturers build brands through efficient marketing and advertising primarily through the Internet. Autobytel provides products and programs to automotive dealers and manufacturers to help them increase marketing efficiency and reduce customer acquisition costs. Autobytel owns and operates the automotive Web sites Autobytel.com, Autoweb.com, Car.com, CarSmart.com, Autosite.com, AICAutoSite.com, Autoahorros.com and CarTV.com. Autobytel is also a leading provider of customer relationship management (CRM) products and programs, which consist of lead management products, customer loyalty and retention marketing programs, and data extraction services for dealers. Autobytel is also a provider of automotive marketing data and technology.

Autobytel is a Delaware corporation incorporated on May 17, 1996. Its principal corporate offices are located in Irvine, California. Autobytel completed an initial public offering in March 1999 and its common stock is listed on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol ABTL.

The accompanying interim consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2005, and for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 are unaudited. The unaudited interim consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the same basis as the audited annual consolidated financial statements and, in the opinion of Autobytel’s management, reflect all adjustments, which are of a normal recurring nature, necessary to fairly state Autobytel’s consolidated balance sheets and statements of operations and cash flows for the periods presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Autobytel’s results for an interim period are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year.

Although Autobytel believes that all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the interim periods presented are included and that the disclosures are adequate, these consolidated financial statements and related notes are unaudited and should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and related notes for the year ended December 31, 2004 included in Autobytel’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2005.

On March 31, 2004, Autobytel adopted FIN 46R and determined it was the primary beneficiary of Autobytel.Europe LLC (Autobytel.Europe). As a result of adopting FIN 46R, Autobytel consolidated Autobytel.Europe in its consolidated financial statements. Autobytel owns 49% of Autobytel.Europe. (See Note 3.)

All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires Autobytel to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

For purposes of the consolidated balance sheets and the consolidated statements of cash flows, Autobytel considers all highly liquid investments with an original maturity of three months or less at the date of purchase to be cash equivalents. Domestic cash and cash equivalents represent amounts held by Autobytel for use by Autobytel.

Restricted international cash and cash equivalents represent amounts held for Autobytel.Europe’s current operations use as directed by Autobytel.Europe. Restricted international cash and cash equivalents are not available to Autobytel.

Autobytel categorized its debt securities as either held-to-maturity or available-for-sale investments in accordance with SFAS No. 115, “Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities.” All held-to-maturity securities with remaining maturities of less than one year are classified as short-term investments and all held-to-maturity securities with remaining maturities greater than one year are classified as long-term investments and are reported at amortized cost. Autobytel categorized auction rate securities as available-for-sale short-term investments. Auction rate securities are reported at cost, which approximates fair market value due to the interest rate reset feature of these securities. As such, no unrealized gains or losses related to these securities were recognized during the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. The cost of securities sold is based on the specific identification method.

Autobytel reviews its investments in debt securities for potential impairment on a regular basis. As part of the evaluation process, Autobytel considers the credit ratings of these securities and Autobytel’s intent and ability to hold the investment for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated improvement of the investee financial condition. Autobytel will record an impairment loss on investments for any other-than-temporary decline in fair value of these debt securities below their cost basis. For the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, Autobytel did not record any impairment losses that were related to other-than-temporary decline in fair value of its debt securities.

As of June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, the amortized cost basis, aggregate fair value, unrealized gains and losses by security type were as follows:

The following represents the contractual maturities of investments as of June 30, 2005:

Autobytel classifies revenues as lead fees, advertising, customer relationship management (CRM) services, and data, applications and other. Revenues by groups of similar services are as follows for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively:

Net income (loss) per share has been calculated under SFAS No. 128, “Earnings per Share.” SFAS No. 128 requires companies to compute earnings per share under two different methods, basic and diluted. Basic net income (loss) per share is calculated by dividing the net income by the weighted average shares of common stock outstanding during the period. Diluted net income (loss) per share is calculated by dividing the net income by the weighted average shares of common stock outstanding during the period and dilutive potential shares of common stock. Dilutive potential shares of common stock, as determined under the treasury stock method, consist of shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of stock options net of shares of common stock assumed to be repurchased by Autobytel from the exercise proceeds.

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net income (loss) per share:

For the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005, 7,944,035 and 7,866,917 antidilutive potential shares of common stock have been excluded from the calculation of diluted net income (loss) per share, as Autobytel incurred a net loss for the period. For the three months and six months ended June 30, 2004, 1,548,368 and 1,131,432 antidilutive potential shares of common stock have been excluded from the calculation of diluted net income per share which represent stock options with an exercise price greater than the average market price for the period.

As permitted under SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation-Transition and Disclosure,” which amended SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation”, Autobytel has elected to continue to account for its stock-based compensation using the intrinsic value method in accordance with the provisions of Accounting Principles Board Opinion (APB) No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees.” Under APB 25, compensation expense is recognized over the vesting period based on the excess of the market closing price over the exercise price on the grant date.

For disclosure purposes, stock compensation expense has been estimated using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model on the date of grant and assumptions related to dividend yield, stock price volatility, weighted-average risk free interest rate and expected life of the stock options, which is a fair value based method. Had the provisions of SFAS No. 123 been applied to Autobytel’s stock option grants for its stock-based compensation plans, Autobytel’s net income (loss) and net income (loss) per share for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, would approximate the pro forma amounts below:

The effects of applying SFAS No. 123 in this pro forma disclosure are not indicative of future amounts.

Autobytel granted 893,500 and 438,000 stock options to employees and directors during the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Autobytel granted 893,500 and 988,000 stock options to employees and directors during the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The options granted in the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were estimated to have a weighted average fair value per share of $2.58 and $5.84, respectively. The options granted in the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 were estimated to have a weighted average fair value per share of $2.58 and $6.38, respectively. The fair value was based on the Black-Scholes option-pricing model on the date of grant and the following assumptions:

Awards issued under the employee stock purchase plan were estimated to have a weighted average fair value per award of $0.87 and $1.75 for the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, Awards issued under the employee stock purchase plan were estimated to have a weighted average fair value per award of $0.87 and $2.40 for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The fair value was based on the Black-Scholes option-pricing model and the following assumptions:

As of June 30, 2005, Autobytel had a total of 8,269,633 stock options outstanding, of which 3,057,092 stock options had exercise prices below the closing price per share of Autobytel’s common stock on that date.

Autobytel conducts its business within one business segment, which is defined as providing automotive marketing services.

In December 2004, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123R (revised 2004), “Share-Based Payment”, which revised SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation”. This statement supercedes APB Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees”. The revised statement addresses the accounting for share-based payment transactions with employees and other third parties, eliminates the ability to account for share-based compensation transactions using APB 25 and requires that the compensation costs relating to such transactions be recognized in the consolidated statement of operations. The revised statement is effective as of the first annual period beginning after June 15, 2005. In accordance with the revised statement, Autobytel will be required to recognize the expense attributable to stock options granted or vested subsequent to December 31, 2005. Autobytel expects the adoption of SFAS 123R will result in amounts that are similar to the current pro forma disclosures in Note 2 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 153, “Exchanges of Non-monetary Assets, an amendment of APB Opinion No. 29,” (“SFAS 153”). SFAS 153 addresses the measurement of exchanges of non-monetary assets and redefines the scope of transactions that should be measured based on the fair value of the assets exchanged. SFAS 153 is effective for non-monetary asset exchanges occurring in fiscal periods beginning after June 15, 2005. The adoption of SFAS 153 is not expected to have a material effect on Autobytel’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

On March 29, 2005, the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 107 which expresses the views of the SEC regarding the interaction between SFAS No. 123R and certain SEC rules and regulations and provides the SEC’s views regarding the valuation of share-based payment arrangements for public companies. In particular, SAB 107 provides guidance related to share-based payment transactions with non-employees, the transition from nonpublic to public entity status, valuation methods (including assumptions such as expected volatility and expected term), the accounting for certain redeemable financial instruments issued under share-based payment arrangements, the classification of compensation expense, non-GAAP financial measures, first-time adoption of SFAS No. 123R in an interim period, capitalization of compensation cost related to share-based payment arrangements, the accounting for income tax effects of share-based payment arrangements upon adoption of SFAS No. 123R, the modification of employee share options prior to adoption of SFAS No. 123R and disclosures in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations subsequent to adoption of SFAS No. 123R. Autobytel does not expect the impact SAB 107, which became effective on March 29, 2005, to have a material impact on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In May 2005, Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Statement of Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 154, “Accounting Changes and Error Corrections” (“SFAS 154”). SFAS 154 requires retrospective application to prior periods’ financial statements of changes in accounting principle. It also requires that the new accounting principle be applied to the balances of assets and liabilities as of the beginning of the earliest period for which retrospective application is practicable and that a corresponding adjustment be made to the opening balance of retained earnings for that period rather than being reported in an income statement. The statement will be effective for accounting changes and corrections of errors

made in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005. Autobytel does not expect the adoption of SFAS 154 to have a material effect on its consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Autobytel.Europe was organized in August 1997 and began operations in the fourth quarter of 1999. Autobytel.Europe was formed to expand the Autobytel business model and operations throughout Europe.

On March 28, 2002, Autobytel.Europe completed a recapitalization, which reduced Autobytel’s ownership of Autobytel.Europe from 76.5% to 49%. As a result of the reduction in Autobytel’s ownership interest, Autobytel accounted for its investment in Autobytel.Europe under the equity method subsequent to March 28, 2002.

On March 31, 2004, Autobytel adopted the provisions of FIN 46R and determined it was the primary beneficiary of Autobytel.Europe. The assets and liabilities of Autobytel.Europe were as follows:

Autobytel.Europe’s revenue and expenses are included in Autobytel’s consolidated results of operations beginning April 1, 2004. Autobytel.Europe’s revenue for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 was $31 and $76, respectively, and $35 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004.

On April 15, 2004, Autobytel acquired all of the outstanding common stock of Stoneage Corporation (Stoneage), now Car.com, Inc., a provider of Internet automotive buying services and owner of the Car.com Web site. Stoneage was acquired to expand Autobytel’s market share of new car buyers, increase the number of purchase requests processed through Autobytel, and add retail and enterprise dealer relationships to Autobytel. The acquisition also added the Car.com finance request business to Autobytel. Autobytel believes that the combined assets will further position it as a leader in the internet automotive business services sector. The aggregate purchase price was $50,767 and consisted of $15,251 in cash and 2,305,244 shares of common stock valued at $34,480 and transaction costs of $1,036.

Stoneage’s financial position and results of operations from the date of acquisition on April 15, 2004 have been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

On April 9, 2004, Autobytel acquired all of the outstanding common stock of iDriveonline, Inc. (iDriveonline), now Retention Performance Marketing, Inc., a provider of customer loyalty and retention marketing programs for the automotive industry, in exchange for cash and common stock. The acquisition combines iDriveonline’s leading applications, including an online prospecting and retention tool, enhanced data and segmentation tools, and improved dealer reporting capabilities with Autobytel’s existing customer retention program. Through this acquisition, Autobytel gained a meaningful presence in the automotive CRM marketplace. The aggregate purchase price was $12,168 and consisted of $5,021 in cash, 474,501 shares of common stock valued at $6,775 and transaction costs of $372.

iDriveonline’s financial position and results of operations from the date of acquisition on April 9, 2004 have been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

The following summarized unaudited pro forma consolidated results of operations are presented as if the acquisitions of iDriveonline and Stoneage had occurred on January 1, 2004. The unaudited pro forma results are not necessarily indicative of future earnings or earnings that would have been reported had the acquisitions been completed as presented.

Acquired intangible assets recorded as a part of the AVV, Inc., iDriveonline and Stoneage acquisitions are amortized over their estimated useful lives and consist of the following:

Amortization expense for the remaining lives of the acquired intangible assets is estimated to be as follows:

In August 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Autobytel and certain of Autobytel’s current and former directors and officers (the “Autobytel Individual Defendants”) and underwriters involved in Autobytel’s initial public offering. The complaints against Autobytel have been consolidated with two other complaints that relate to its initial public offering but do not name it as a defendant, and a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. This action purports to allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in Autobytel’s initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for Autobytel’s initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. A motion to dismiss addressing issues common to the companies and individuals who have been sued in these actions was filed on July 15, 2002. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Autobytel Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the Autobytel Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against Autobytel. On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the Autobytel case. Autobytel has approved a settlement agreement and related agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between Autobytel, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants. Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of Autobytel and the Autobytel Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. Autobytel would agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims Autobytel may have against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers’ settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the difference. It is anticipated that any potential financial obligation of Autobytel to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and related agreements will be directly covered and paid by its insurance carriers. Autobytel currently is not aware of any material limitations on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to plaintiffs from its insurance carriers. Its carriers are solvent, and Autobytel is not aware of any uncertainties as to the legal sufficiency of an insurance claim with respect to any recovery by plaintiffs. Therefore, Autobytel does not expect that the settlement will involve any payment by Autobytel. If material limitations on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to the plaintiffs from Autobytel’s insurance carriers should arise, Autobytel’s maximum financial obligation to plaintiffs pursuant to the settlement agreement would be less than $3.4 million. On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion. The Court ruled that the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs were required to submit a revised settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims. The issuers and plaintiffs submitted to the Court a revised settlement agreement consistent with the Court’s opinion. The revised settlement agreement has been approved by all the issuer defendants that are not in bankruptcy. The underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the Court will grant final approval to the settlement. If the settlement agreement is not approved and Autobytel is found liable, Autobytel is unable to estimate or predict the potential damages that might be awarded, whether such damages would be greater than its insurance coverage, or whether such damages would have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows in any future period.

Between April and June 2001, eight separate purported class actions virtually identical to the one filed against Autobytel were filed against Autoweb.com, Inc. (“Autoweb”), certain of Autoweb’s current and former directors and officers (the “Autoweb Individual Defendants”) and underwriters involved in Autoweb’s initial public offering. The complaints against Autoweb have been consolidated into a single action, and a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. The foregoing action purports to allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in Autoweb’s initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the

prospectus for Autoweb’s initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. A motion to dismiss addressing issues common to the companies and individuals who have been sued in these actions was filed on July 15, 2002. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Autoweb Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the Autoweb Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim without prejudice and with leave to replead but denied the motion to dismiss the claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against Autoweb. On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the Autoweb case. Autoweb has approved a settlement agreement and related agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between Autoweb, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants. Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of Autoweb and the Autoweb Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. Autoweb would agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims Autoweb may have against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers’ settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the difference. It is anticipated that any potential financial obligation of Autoweb to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and related agreements will be directly covered and paid by its insurance carriers. Autoweb currently is not aware of any material limitations on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to plaintiffs from its insurance carriers. Its carriers are solvent, and Autoweb is not aware of any uncertainties as to the legal sufficiency of an insurance claim with respect to any recovery by plaintiffs. Therefore, Autobytel does not expect that the settlement will involve any payment by Autoweb. If material limitations on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to the plaintiffs from Autoweb’s insurance carriers should arise, Autoweb’s maximum financial obligation to plaintiffs pursuant to the settlement agreement would be less than $3.4 million. On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion. The Court ruled that the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs were required to submit a revised settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims. The issuers and plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised settlement agreement consistent with the Court’s opinion. The revised settlement agreement has been approved by all of the issuer defendants that are not in bankruptcy. The underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the Court will grant final approval to the settlement. If the settlement agreement is not approved and Autoweb is found liable, Autobytel is unable to estimate or predict the potential damages that might be awarded, whether such damages would be greater than Autoweb’s insurance coverage, or whether such damages would have a material impact on Autobytel’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows in any future period.

On September 24, 2004, Autobytel filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Dealix Corporation. In that lawsuit, Autobytel asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,282,517, entitled “Real Time Communication of Purchase Requests,” against Dealix Corporation. Autobytel contends that Dealix Corporation is infringing Autobytel’s patent by virtue of Dealix Corporation’s software system for the distribution of purchase requests and seeks damages and/or a preliminary injunction. Dealix Corporation filed answers to this lawsuit on January 28, 2005, February 1, 2005 and July 19, 2005, in which it asserts typical defensive counterclaims denying infringement, asserting patent misuse and challenging the validity of the patent. Autobytel filed a reply responding to such counterclaims on August 2, 2005. A Markman Hearing, to construe the individual terms of the asserted patent’s claims prior to a determination of infringement, is scheduled for October, 2005. Dealix Corporation also seeks attorney’s fees and costs. Autobytel expects to incur attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter as are customary in the prosecution of patent litigation, and could be liable for Dealix Corporation’s attorneys’ fees and costs if Dealix Corporation is successful in its counterclaims.

Between October and December 2004, five separate purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Autobytel and certain of its current directors and current and former officers. The claims were brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares during the period July 24, 2003 through October 21, 2004. The claims alleged in all of these purported class actions are virtually identical, and purport to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In this regard, the plaintiffs allege that Autobytel misrepresented and omitted material facts with respect to its financial results and operations during the time period between July 24, 2003 and October 20, 2004. The complaint seeks unspecified

compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as accountants’ and experts’ fees. On January 28, 2005, the court ordered the consolidation of the currently pending class actions into a single case pursuant to a stipulation for consolidation signed by all parties. On March 14, 2005, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel. On June 30, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed and served a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class period is July 24, 2003 to October 21, 2004. Defendants filed and served a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on August 1, 2005. The hearing is currently set for November 2005. Additional lawsuits asserting the same or similar claims may be filed as well. Autobytel intends to defend the claims vigorously. However, Autobytel cannot currently predict the impact or outcome of this litigation, which could be material, and the initiation, continuation and outcome of these lawsuits may have a material impact on Autobytel’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

In addition, Autobytel’s directors and a former officer are defendants in a derivative suit pending in the Superior Court of Orange County, California, and Autobytel is named as a nominal defendant in this suit. This suit purports to allege that the defendants breached numerous duties to Autobytel, including breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of information, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, as well as violations of California Corporations Code 25402 (trading with material non-public information), and that these breaches and violations caused losses to Autobytel, including damages to its reputation and goodwill. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on allegations that the defendants disseminated false and misleading statements concerning Autobytel’s results of operations and that these results were inflated at all relevant times due to violations of generally accepted accounting principles and Securities and Exchange Commission rules. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, treble damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as accountants’ and experts’ fees. Plaintiffs filed and served an Amended Derivative Complaint on July 29, 2005. Pursuant to stipulated order, defendants’ response to this Amended Derivative Complaint is due in September 2005. Autobytel intends to defend this suit vigorously. However, Autobytel cannot currently predict the impact or outcome of this litigation, which could be material, and the continuation and outcome of this lawsuit, as well as the initiation of similar suits may have a material impact on Autobytel’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Autobytel has reviewed the above class and derivative actions and does not believe that it is probable that a loss contingency has occurred, therefore, no amounts have been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

From time to time, Autobytel is involved in other litigation matters arising from the normal course of its business activities. The actions filed against Autobytel and other litigation, even if not meritorious, could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and management attention and an adverse outcome in litigation could materially adversely affect Autobytel’s business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

In 2002, Autobytel recorded a total of $769 for charges related to the restructuring of Autobytel’s operations to reduce costs and enhance efficiencies. The charges included severance costs affecting approximately 15% of Autobytel’s employees in sales, marketing and information technology, and Autobytel’s lease obligation on the vacant portion of office facilities in Westborough, Massachusetts.

The remaining accrued domestic restructuring liabilities related to the 2002 restructuring charges for Autobytel’s lease obligation on the vacant portion of office facilities in Westborough, Massachusetts were paid in full during the second quarter of 2005.

Autobytel and Robert Grimes, a current director and a former Executive Vice President of Autobytel, are parties to a consulting services agreement dated April 1, 2000. The agreement was extended through September 30, 2004 and then on a month to month basis until notice of termination by either party. During the term of the consulting agreement, Mr. Grimes will receive $50 per year payable on a monthly basis and a $2.5 monthly office expense allowance. These costs are included

in product and technology development expenses in the consolidated statements of operations. Mr. Grimes will make himself available to the executive officers of Autobytel for up to 16 hours a month for consultation and other activities related to formulating and implementing business strategies and relationships. Autobytel may terminate the agreement upon Mr. Grimes’ breach of contract. If Mr. Grimes’ agreement is terminated without breach, Mr. Grimes is entitled to either a pro rated or a lump sum payment equal to the amount that would have been received by Mr. Grimes if he had remained a consultant for the remaining balance of the term. In the event of death or disability, Autobytel will pay to Mr. Grimes or his successors and assignees the amount that Mr. Grimes would have received for the remainder of the term of the agreement.

In connection with the appointment of Ariel Amir to the position of Chief Legal and Administrative Officer, Autobytel and Mr. Amir amended and restated the April 1, 2002 Employment Agreement between them in an Employment Agreement (as amended and restated, the “Amir Employment Agreement”).

The Amir Employment Agreement is for a one year term and automatically renews for an additional one year period unless either party notifies the other of its intent not to renew no later than 120 days prior to the expiration of the one year term. Mr. Amir is entitled to an annual base salary of $265,000 during the term, and is eligible for a bonus of 50% of his annual base salary in the board’s discretion. In addition, Mr. Amir may participate in any benefit plans generally afforded to executive officers. If Mr. Amir’s employment is terminated without “cause” or if Mr. Amir terminates his employment with “good reason” (each as defined in the Amir Employment Agreement), Mr. Amir is entitled to a lump sum payment equal to his annual base salary plus bonus, as well as benefits for one year following such termination.

In the event of a change of control during the term of his employment or at any time during the six month period following such term, Mr. Amir is entitled to a lump sum payment equal to two times the sum of his annual base salary plus a bonus of 50% of annual base salary, so long as Mr. Amir agrees, if requested, to continue with Autobytel or any successor for no longer than 90 days after the change of control. If Mr. Amir’s compensation is deemed to be parachute payments under the Internal Revenue Code, then Autobytel has agreed to make additional payments to him to compensate for his additional tax obligations.

Mr. Amir will also be granted stock options to purchase 100,000 shares of Autobytel’s common stock, which shall vest, as to 33,333 of the options, on the one year anniversary of the date of grant, and thereafter approximately 2,777 of the options shall vest on each monthly anniversary of the date of grant, provided that the vesting of such options shall accelerate upon a change of control.

Item 2. Management’s Discussion And Analysis Of Financial Condition And Results Of Operations

You should read the following discussion of our results of operations and financial condition in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. This discussion contains forward-looking statements based on current expectations that involve risks and uncertainties. Actual results and the timing of certain events may differ significantly from those projected in such forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, including those discussed in the section entitled “Risk Factors” below in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

We are an automotive marketing services company that helps dealers sell cars and manufacturers build brands through efficient marketing and advertising primarily through the Internet. We own and operate the automotive Web sites Autobytel.com, Autoweb.com, Car.com, CarSmart.com, AutoSite.com, AICAutoSite.com, Autoahorros.com, and CarTV.com. We are also a leading provider of customer relationship management (CRM) products and programs, consisting of lead management products, customer loyalty and retention marketing programs, data extraction services and automotive marketing data and technology.

We expect our results of operations and financial condition during 2005 to be adversely affected by higher than expected operating costs, including an increase in customer acquisition costs and costs relating to compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as costs associated with the restatements of our consolidated financial statements which were filed on May 31, 2005, the internal review relating to the restatements, and the remediation of material weaknesses in our internal controls identified in our internal review. In addition, costs associated with defending purported class action and derivative lawsuits filed against us and certain current directors and current and former officers relating to the restatements of our consolidated financial statements, and costs associated with enforcing our intellectual property rights, including the lawsuit filed against Dealix Corporation for patent infringement, are also expected to increase our operating costs and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

As previously announced, on April 27, 2005, (i) Jeffrey Schwartz resigned as our Chief Executive Officer and President (but remains an employee in the role of Vice Chairman), (ii) Richard Post, a director, was elected as Chief Executive Officer and President, and (iii) Richard Walker, former Executive Vice President, Corporate Development and Strategy, was elected as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer.

As previously announced, on April 1, 2005, Matthew McDowell, our Vice President and Controller and principal accounting officer, resigned as an employee of Autobytel. Michael F. Schmidt, our Chief Financial Officer, assumed the functions of principal accounting officer, pending our appointment of a Controller.

As previously announced, on May 30, 2005, Mr. Schmidt was appointed as our Chief Financial Officer.

As previously announced, on June 16, 2005, Andrew Donchak tendered his resignation as our Executive Vice President effective July 31, 2005. In connection with the resignation, Mr. Donchak is entitled to a severance payment equal to one year’s base salary at the highest rate paid while employed by us and benefits for twelve months following the termination of his employment. As a result, we accrued $0.3 million in sales and marketing expenses during the second quarter of 2005.

On April 19, 2005, we took steps to commit to integrate the business operations of our customer loyalty and retention marketing program, Retention Performance Marketing, with our customer lead management product, Web Control^{^®}, (the “Integration”). We determined to proceed with the Integration in order to increase efficiency and respond to market demand for integrated customer relationship management solutions. As part of the Integration, we intend to close our Houston office and to move the operations of such office to our offices in Irvine, California and/or Westerville, Ohio. Certain employees in the Houston office may relocate to our offices in Irvine, California and/or Westerville, Ohio. We expect to complete the Integration by December 31, 2005. We estimate that the total expenses relating to the Integration, primarily consisting of retention, severance and relocation costs, will be between $175,000 and $300,000.

We expect revenue from our business for the second half of 2005 to be lower than the second half of 2004. We also expect the percentage of 2005 revenues from lead fees to decrease and the percentage of revenues from CRM services and advertising to increase, in each case, from 2004.

As of June 30, 2005, we had $45.1 million in domestic cash, cash equivalents, and short-term and long-term investments.

Net cash used in operations was $6.4 million in the second quarter of 2005. The decrease is primarily due to the payments associated with the previous internal review, restatements and audits of our consolidated financial statements, annual insurance premiums and a contract dispute settlement, which totaled approximately $8.6 million. We may continue to use cash from operations for the remainder of 2005.

Our lead referral dealer relationships represent every major domestic and imported make of vehicle and light truck sold in the United States. As of June 30, 2005, our lead referral dealer relationships consisted of approximately 6,100 retail dealer relationships (including approximately 260 suspended dealers), relationships with major dealer groups representing approximately 680 enterprise dealer relationships, and five direct relationships encompassing 15 brands with automotive manufacturers or their automotive buying service affiliates through our enterprise sales initiatives representing up to approximately 17,000 enterprise dealer relationships. As of June 30, 2005, approximately 850 retail dealers had more than one retail lead referral dealer relationship with us. A majority of our revenue from lead referral dealer relationships is derived from retail dealer relationships and enterprise dealer relationships with major dealer groups. In addition, as of June 30, 2005, our finance lead referral network included approximately 300 relationships with retail dealers, finance request intermediaries, and automotive finance companies who participate in our Car.com finance referral network. As of June 30, 2005, CRM customer relationships consisted of approximately 2,900 Web Control, our lead management product, and approximately 760 Retention Performance Marketing^{^®} (RPM^{^®}), our customer loyalty and retention marketing program, relationships. As an example of how we calculate these relationships, a dealer that subscribes to the Autobytel.com new car program and the Autoweb.com new car program accounts for two retail dealer relationships, and a dealer that subscribes to our Web Control product and RPM program accounts for two CRM customer relationships. As a further example, a dealer group that owns three different franchises and that subscribes to the Autoweb.com new car program for all such franchises accounts for three retail dealer relationships. Web Control customer relationships are accounted for based on the number of customers using Web Control, rather than the number of franchises owned by a given customer. We no longer include iManager^SM (our legacy lead management tool) product relationships within CRM customer relationships, as we are offering dealers who use iManager the opportunity to migrate to Web Control. Suspended dealer relationships are relationships with dealers to whom the delivery of purchase requests or performance of services has been suspended. The number of dealer relationships and customer relationships as of June 30, 2005 referred to above was determined in conformity with the methodology described above.

We conduct our business within one business segment, which is defined as providing automotive marketing services.

Lead fees consist of car buying purchase request fees for new and used cars, and finance request fees.

Fees for car buying purchase requests are paid by retail dealers, enterprise dealers and automotive manufacturers or their buying service affiliates who participate in our online car buying referral networks. Beginning April 15, 2004, lead fees include fees paid by retail dealers, enterprise dealers and automotive manufacturers who participate in our Car.com online car buying referral network. Enterprise dealers consist of (i) dealers that are part of major dealer groups with more than 25 dealerships with whom we have a single agreement and (ii) dealers that are eligible to receive purchase requests from us as part of a single agreement with an automotive manufacturer or its automotive buying service affiliate. Major dealer groups include AutoNation and automotive manufacturers include manufacturers such as General Motors, Ford and Mazda. Fees paid by customers participating in our car buying referral networks are comprised of monthly subscription and transaction fees for consumer leads, or purchase requests, which are directed to participating dealers. These monthly subscription and transaction fees are recognized in the period service is provided. Ongoing fixed monthly subscription fees are based, among other things, on the size of territory, demographics and, indirectly, the transmittal of purchase requests to customers participating in our car buying referral networks. Transaction fees are based on the number of purchase requests provided to retail and enterprise dealers and automotive manufacturers each month.

Generally, our dealer contracts are terminable on 30 days’ notice by either party. As of June 30, 2005, a major manufacturer in our program accounted for up to approximately 8,000 enterprise dealer relationships. This program with such major manufacturer automatically extends in one-month increments until terminated by us or the manufacturer. From time to time, a major dealer group or automotive manufacturer may significantly increase or decrease the number of enterprise dealers participating in our dealer networks or the number of purchase requests accepted from us. We intend to strengthen the size and quality of our relationships with major dealer groups and automotive manufacturers.

Beginning April 15, 2004, lead fees also include fees paid by retail dealers, finance request intermediaries, and automotive finance companies who participate in our Car.com finance referral network. Customers participating in our

Car.com finance referral network pay ongoing monthly subscription fees or transaction fees based on the number of finance requests provided to them each month. The fees are recognized in the period service is provided.

For the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, lead fees were $19.7 million and $21.8 million, or 63% and 70% of total revenues in the second quarter of 2005 and 2004, respectively. We expect to derive a majority of our revenues in the foreseeable future from retail dealers, enterprise dealers and automotive manufacturers that participate in our online car buying referral networks and dealers, finance request intermediaries, and automotive finance companies that participate in our Car.com finance referral network. We anticipate that our lead fee revenue in 2005 will decrease compared to 2004 due to lower revenues from retail dealers, partially offset by higher finance request revenue.

Advertising revenues represent fees from automotive manufacturers and other advertisers who target car buyers during the research, consideration and decision making process on our Web sites, as well as through direct marketing offerings. Using the targeted nature of Internet advertising, manufacturers can advertise their brands effectively on any of our Web sites by targeting advertisements to consumers who are researching vehicles, thereby increasing the likelihood of influencing their purchase decisions.

Revenues from advertising were $4.5 million and $3.2 million, or 14% and 10% of total revenues, in the second quarter of 2005 and 2004, respectively. With further selling of additional advertising inventory, an increase in Internet advertising spending by automotive manufacturers, the acquisition of Stoneage in April 2004 and the addition of new and higher priced products, such as rich media and direct marketing offerings, we anticipate that our advertising revenues in 2005 will increase compared to 2004.

CRM services consist of fees paid by customers who use our customer retention and lead management products. Customer retention and lead management products consist of the Web Control system (Web Control), our customer lead management product, Retention Performance Marketing (RPM) and iDriveonline, our customer loyalty and retention marketing programs, and Automotive Download Services (ADS), our data extraction service. CRM services include fees from Web Control and ADS and fees from dealers using the iDriveonline program beginning April 9, 2004. Customers using our CRM services pay transaction fees based on the specified service, or ongoing monthly subscription fees based on the level of functionality selected from our suite of lead management products. Revenues from CRM services were $6.0 million and $5.0 million, or 19% and 16% of total revenues, in the second quarter of 2005 and 2004, respectively. We expect revenues from our CRM services to increase in 2005 compared to 2004 primarily due to the acquisition of iDriveonline in April 2004.

Revenues from data, applications and other include fees from automotive marketing data and technology, classified listings for used cars, international licensing agreements, internet sales training and other products and services. Revenues from data, applications and other were $1.1 million and $1.2 million, or 4% of total revenues, in the second quarter of 2005 and 2004, respectively. We develop data for use on our Web sites, and also make it available to third parties, such as automotive manufacturers and internet portals. We continue to focus our efforts on offering marketing services to dealers and automotive manufacturers. We expect revenues from data, applications and other to decline in 2005 compared to 2004.

To enhance the quality of purchase requests, each purchase request is passed through our Quality Verification System (QVS)^SM which uses filters and validation processes to identify consumers with valid purchase intent before delivering the purchase request to our retail and enterprise dealers. We believe the implementation of these quality enhancing processes allows us to deliver high quality purchase requests to our retail and enterprise dealers. High quality purchase requests are those that result in high closing ratios. Closing ratio is the ratio of the number of vehicles purchased at a dealer generated from purchase requests to the total number of purchase requests sent to that dealer.

We delivered approximately 0.9 million and 1.1 million purchase requests through our online systems to retail and enterprise dealers in the second quarter of 2005 and 2004, respectively. Of these, approximately 0.6 million and 0.7 million were delivered to retail dealers in the second quarter of 2005 and 2004, respectively, and approximately 0.3 million and 0.4 million were delivered to enterprise dealers in the second quarter of 2005 and 2004, respectively. The number of purchase requests we delivered to our retail and enterprise dealers in the second quarter of 2005 declined by 0.1 million compared to the first quarter of 2005. Management is taking actions to reverse this trend. However, we cannot assure that this trend will not continue.

Additionally, we delivered approximately 0.2 million and 0.1 million finance requests in the second quarter of 2005 and 2004, respectively, to retail dealers, finance request intermediaries, and automotive finance companies. We expect that the number of finance requests we deliver to retail dealers, finance request intermediaries, and automotive finance companies will increase in 2005 compared to 2004.

To enhance our retail dealers’ ability to sell cars using our programs, we developed and implemented various products and processes that allow us to provide high quality dealer support. We contact all retail dealers new to our programs to confirm their initiation on our programs and train their designated personnel on the use of our programs and products. We also contact our retail dealers on a regular basis to identify retail dealers who are not using our programs effectively, develop relationships with retail dealer principals and their personnel responsible for calling consumers and to inform our retail dealers about their effectiveness using surveys completed by purchase-intending consumers.

Our relationship with retail dealers may terminate for various reasons including:

In the second quarter of 2005, we experienced a net reduction of approximately 100 in our number of retail dealer relationships. We cannot assure that we will be able to reduce dealer turnover. Our inability or failure to reduce dealer turnover could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Because our primary revenue source is from lead fees, our business model is different from many other Internet commerce sites. The automobiles requested through our Web sites are sold by dealers; therefore, we derive no direct revenues from the sale of a vehicle and have no procurement, carrying or shipping costs and no inventory risk.

The following table sets forth our results of operations as a percentage of revenues:

Three Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to Three Months Ended June 30, 2004

Revenues. Our revenues increased by $0.3 million, or 1%, to $31.4 million in the second quarter of 2005 compared to $31.1 million in the second quarter of 2004. The increase was due to growth in CRM services and advertising, offset by a decrease in lead fees.

Lead Fees. Lead fees decreased by $2.1 million, or 10%, to $19.7 million in the second quarter of 2005 compared to $21.8 million in the second quarter of 2004. The decrease was driven by a decline of 0.2 million in purchase requests delivered, offset by an increase of 0.1 million in finance requests delivered. The number of retail dealer relationships in our lead referral program was approximately 6,100 and 6,500 at June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The number of enterprise dealer relationships with major dealer groups in our lead referral program was approximately 680 and 590 at June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. In addition, we had five direct relationships encompassing 15 brands with automotive manufacturers or their automotive buying service affiliates representing up to approximately 17,000 enterprise dealer relationships at June 30, 2005, compared to six direct relationships encompassing 17 brands representing up to approximately 18,100 enterprise dealer relationships at June 30, 2004. Our finance lead referral network at June 30, 2005 and 2004 also included approximately 300 and 200, respectively, relationships with retail dealers, finance request intermediaries, and automotive finance companies who participate in the Car.com finance referral network. Lead fees and the number of purchase requests we delivered to our customers continued to decline in the second quarter of 2005 compared to the first quarter of 2005 and fourth quarter 2004. Management is taking actions to reverse this trend. However, we cannot assure that this trend will not continue.

Advertising. Advertising revenue increased by $1.3 million, or 42%, to $4.5 million in the second quarter of 2005 compared to $3.2 million in the second quarter of 2004. The increase was primarily due to higher spending by automotive manufacturers and the addition of new products, such as rich media and direct marketing offerings. With further selling of additional available advertising inventory, an increase in Internet advertising spending by automotive manufacturers and the addition of new and higher priced products, such as rich media and direct marketing offerings, we expect our advertising revenues to increase in 2005 compared to 2004.

CRM Services. CRM services increased by $1.1 million, or 22%, to $6.0 million in the second quarter of 2005 compared to $5.0 million in the second quarter of 2004. The increase was due to an increase in the number of Web Control and RPM customers. The number of Web Control customers and RPM customers were approximately 2,900 and 760, respectively, at June 30, 2005 compared to approximately 2,690 and 680, respectively, at June 30, 2004. We expect revenues from our CRM services to increase in 2005 compared to 2004 due to the acquisition of iDriveonline in April 2004.

Data, Applications and Other. Revenues from data, applications and other decreased by $0.1 million, or 7%, to $1.1 million in the second quarter of 2005 compared to $1.2 million in the second quarter of 2004. We expect data, applications and other to decline in 2005 compared to 2004.

Cost of Revenues. Cost of revenues consists of traffic acquisition costs (“TAC”) and other cost of revenues. TAC consists of payments made to our internet purchase providers, including internet portals and online automotive information providers. Other cost of revenues consists of printing, production, and postage for our customer loyalty and retention programs, fees paid to third parties for data and content included on our properties, connectivity costs, technology license fees, server equipment depreciation and technology amortization and compensation related expense.

Cost of revenues decreased by $0.2 million or 2% to $12.7 million in the second quarter of 2005 compared to $12.9 million in the second quarter of 2004. This represents 41% of total revenues for both the second quarter of 2005 and 2004. The decrease was due to a $0.6 million decrease in the costs of purchase requests acquired from third parties, a $0.1 million decrease in personnel and related costs, a $0.3 million decrease in amortization of capitalized internal use software, offset by a $0.8 million increase in printing, production, and postage costs for our customer loyalty and

retention program. The decrease in purchase request costs was primarily due to the decreased delivery of purchase requests. The decrease in personnel and related costs was primarily due to decrease headcount. The decrease in amortization of capitalized internal use software was due to certain costs that were fully amortized in 2004. The increase in printing, production and postage costs was due to the increase in customer loyalty and retention program volumes in our RPM business. We expect our costs of revenue to increase in 2005 compared to 2004.

Sales and Marketing. Sales and marketing expense includes costs for developing our brand equity and personnel and other costs associated with dealer sales, CRM sales, Web site advertising sales, and dealer training and support. Sales and marketing expense in the second quarter of 2005 were flat when compared to the second quarter of 2004. We expect our sales and marketing expenses to increase in 2005 compared to 2004.

Product and Technology Development. Product and technology development expense includes personnel costs related to developing new products, enhancing the features, content and functionality of our Web sites and our Internet-based communications platform, costs associated with our telecommunications and computer infrastructure, and costs related to data and technology development. Product and technology development expense increased by $0.8 million, or 15%, to $6.3 million in the second quarter of 2005 compared to $5.5 million in the second quarter of 2004. This represents 20% and 18% of total revenues for the second quarter of 2005 and 2004, respectively. The increase was due to higher personnel and related costs of $0.7 million and a $0.1 million in severance costs associated with the separation of three employees from us. The higher personnel and related costs are associated with the increase in headcount. We expect our product and technology development expenses to increase in 2005 compared to 2004.

General and Administrative. General and administrative expense consists of executive, financial and legal personnel expenses and costs related to being a public company. General and administrative expense increased by $4.0 million, or 89%, to $8.5 million in the second quarter of 2005 compared to $4.5 million in the second quarter of 2005. This represents 27% and 15% of total revenues for the second quarter of 2005 and 2004, respectively. The increase was primarily due to costs associated with the internal review, restatements and audits of our consolidated financial statements of $2.6 million, an increase in legal fees of $1.0 million, of which $0.4 million was associated with enforcing our intellectual property rights, $0.1 million was associated with defending purported class action and derivative lawsuits filed against us and $0.5 million was related to other legal matters, a $0.4 million increase in temporary personnel costs, a $0.4 million reduction in the estimated provision for bad debt in the second quarter of 2004 and a $0.2 million increase in insurance costs. These increases were offset by a $0.3 million charge related to an abandoned acquisition in the second quarter of 2004, a $0.2 million decrease in personnel costs and a $0.1 million severance charge associated with the separation of an employee in the second quarter of 2004. We expect our general and administrative expenses to increase in 2005 compared to 2004 due to costs relating to compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, costs associated with our internal review and the remediation of material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting identified in our internal review, costs associated with defending purported class action and derivative lawsuits filed against us and certain current directors and current and former officers relating to the restatements of our consolidated financial statements, and costs associated with enforcing our intellectual property rights, including the lawsuit filed against Dealix Corporation for patent infringement.

Amortization of Acquired Intangible Assets. Amortization of acquired intangible assets represents the amortization of customer relationships and domain name recorded as part of the AVV, iDriveonline and Stoneage acquisitions. Amortization of acquired intangible assets in the second quarter of 2005 was flat when compared to the second quarter of 2004.

Interest Income. In the second quarter of 2005, interest income increased by $0.2 million, to $0.4 million compared to $0.2 million in the second quarter of 2004. The increase in interest income was due to the investment of our cash in accounts yielding higher interest rates.

Loss in Equity Investees. Loss in equity investee in the first quarter of 2004 represents our share of loss in Autobytel.Europe prior to the adoption of FIN 46R.

Minority Interest. Minority interest represents the portion of Autobytel.Europe’s net income allocable to Autobytel.Europe’s other shareholder.

Income Taxes. Provision for state income taxes in the second quarter of 2005 was flat when compared to the second quarter of 2004. In the preparation of our consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our income taxes in each of the jurisdictions in which we operate, including estimating both our actual current tax exposure and assessing temporary differences resulting from differing treatment of items for tax and accounting purposes. We have net operating loss carryforwards that expire in various years through 2024. We also have federal and state research tax credit carryforwards. The federal research tax credits expire in various years through 2022. The state research tax credits do not expire. Utilization

of these carryforwards is subject to an annual limitation due to the ownership change limitations provided by the Internal Revenue Code and similar state provisions. The annual limitation may result in the expiration of the carryforwards before utilization. To the extent that we have deferred tax assets, we must assess the likelihood that our deferred tax assets will be recovered from taxable temporary differences, tax strategies or future taxable income and to the extent that we believe that recovery is not likely, we must establish a valuation allowance. At the end of each reporting period, we evaluate whether it is more likely than not that our deferred tax assets are not realizable. While we believe that such deferred tax assets were not realizable at June 30, 2005, our assessment may change in future periods if we generate positive operating results and such adjustment would impact our provision for income taxes in the period of such change.

Revenues. Our revenues increased by $9.0 million, or 16%, to $64.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $55.7 million for the same period in 2004. The increase was due to growth in lead fees, CRM services and advertising, which was primary driven by the benefit of Car.com and iDriveonline for a full six months.

Lead Fees. Lead fees increased by $2.4 million, or 6%, to $41.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $39.0 million for the same period in 2004. The increase was due to the delivery of an additional 0.3 million finance requests delivered to dealers, finance request intermediaries, and automotive finance companies for the six months ended June 30, 2005 when compared to the same period in 2004. This increase was offset by a decline of 0.1 million in purchase requests delivered. The increase in finance requests was due to the benefit of Car.com for a full six months in 2005.

Advertising. Advertising revenue increased by $3.0 million, or 48%, to $9.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $6.3 million for the same period in 2004. The increase was primarily due to higher spending by automotive manufacturers, the benefit of Car.com for a full six months in 2005 and the addition of new products, such as rich media and direct marketing offerings in the second half of 2004.

CRM Services. CRM services increased by $3.8 million, or 48%, to $11.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $8.0 million for the same period in 2004. The increase was due to an increase in RPM revenues, primarily due to the benefit of iDriveonline for a full six months in 2005 coupled with its higher fees from its customer loyalty and retention marketing programs. Also, the increase was due to an increase in the number of Web Control and RPM customers. The number of Web Control customers and RPM customers were approximately 2,900 and 760, respectively, at June 30, 2005 compared to approximately 2,690 and 680, respectively, at June 30, 2004.

Data, Applications and Other. Revenues from data, applications and other decreased by $0.2 million, or 8%, to $2.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $2.5 million for the same period in 2004. The decrease was primarily due to a decrease in fees from a program offered to credit unions that was discontinued in the fourth quarter of 2004, coupled with a decrease in fees from classified advertising service and training.

Cost of Revenues. Cost of revenues consists of TAC and other cost of revenues. TAC consists of payments made to our internet purchase providers, including internet portals and online automotive information providers. Other cost of revenues consists of printing, production, and postage for our customer loyalty and retention programs, fees paid to third parties for data and content included on our properties, connectivity costs, technology license fees, server equipment depreciation and technology amortization and compensation related expense.

Cost of revenues increased by $2.7 million or 11% to $26.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $23.4 million for the same period in 2004. This represents 40% and 42% of total revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The increase was due to a $2.0 million increase in the costs of purchase and finance requests acquired from third parties, a $1.4 million increase in printing, production, and postage costs and a $0.1 million increase in amortization of acquired technology. This increase was offset by a $0.2 million decrease in compensation costs, a $0.2 million decrease in depreciation expense and a $0.4 million decrease in the amortization of capitalized internal use software. The increase in purchase request and finance request costs was primarily due to the increased delivery of finance requests. The increase in printing, production and postage costs was primarily due to the increase in customer loyalty and retention program volumes in our RPM business. The increase in amortization of acquired technology was a result of the acquisitions of Stoneage and iDriveonline. The decrease in personnel and related costs was primarily due to decrease headcount. The decrease in depreciation and amortization of capitalized internal use software was due to certain costs that were fully depreciated and amortized in 2004.

Sales and Marketing. Sales and marketing expense increased by $2.0 million, or 15%, to $15.1 million in the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $13.1 million for the same period in 2004. This represents 24% and 23% of total

revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The increase was due to a $1.8 million increase in costs associated with sales and customer relationship maintenance and a $0.3 million increase in marketing personnel and related costs, offset by a $0.1 million decrease in other marketing costs. The increase in sales and customer relationship maintenance was due to higher personnel costs related to increased headcount and severance costs associated with the separation of two employees from us. The increase in marketing personnel and related costs was due to an increase in headcount.

Product and Technology Development. Product and technology development expense increased by $2.5 million, or 26%, to $12.4 million in the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $9.8 million for the same period in 2004. This represents 19% and 18% of total revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The increase was due to higher personnel and related costs of $2.1 million, a $0.1 million increase in telephone costs related to our voice communications and a $0.3 million in other costs. The higher personnel and related costs is associated with the increase in headcount, largely from the acquisition of iDriveonline and Stoneage.

General and Administrative. General and administrative expense increased by $9.3 million, or 124%, to $16.9 million in the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $7.5 million for the same period in 2004. This represents 26% and 14% of total revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The increase was primarily due to costs associated with the internal review, restatements and audits of our consolidated financial statements of $6.0 million, an increase in legal fees of $1.6 million, of which $0.8 million was associated with enforcing our intellectual property rights, $0.2 million was associated with defending purported class action and derivative lawsuits filed against us and $0.6 million was related to other legal matters, a $0.6 million increase in temporary personnel costs, a $0.4 million increase in consulting fees related to the documentation and testing of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, a $0.3 million increase in recruiting costs, a $0.2 million increase in the estimate of bad debt expense that could result from the inability or failure of our customers to pay for our services, a $0.4 million reduction in the estimated provision for bad debt in 2004, a $0.1 million increase in insurance costs and a $0.1 million increase in other costs. These increases were offset by a $0.3 million charge related to an abandoned acquisition in 2004 and a $0.1 million severance charge associated with the separation of an employee in 2004.

Amortization of Acquired Intangible Assets. Amortization of acquired intangible assets represents the amortization of customer relationships and domain name recorded as part of the AVV, iDriveonline and Stoneage acquisitions. Amortization of acquired intangible assets increased by $0.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the same period in 2004. The increase was primarily due to the acquisitions of iDriveonline and Stoneage.

Interest Income. In the six months ended June 30, 2005, interest income increased by $0.3 million, to $0.7 million compared to $0.4 million for the same period in 2004. The increase in interest income was due to the investment of our cash in accounts yielding higher interest rates.

Loss in Equity Investee. Loss in equity investee in the six months ended June 30, 2004 represents our share of loss in Autobytel.Europe prior to the adoption of FIN 46R.

Minority Interest. Minority interest represents the portion of Autobytel.Europe’s net income allocable to Autobytel.Europe’s other shareholder.

From January 1, 2005 through June 30, 2005, we granted stock options to purchase 893,500 shares of common stock under our 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, 1999 Employee and Acquisition Related Stock Option Plan and Amended and Restated 2001 Restricted Stock and Option Plan. The stock options were granted at our common stock closing price on the date of grant. As of June 30, 2005, we had approximately 8.3 million outstanding stock options.

As of July 31, 2005, we had a total of 425 employees. We also utilize independent contractors as required. None of our employees are represented by a labor union. We have not experienced any work stoppages and consider our employee relations to be good.

Our domestic cash, cash equivalents, and short-term and long-term investments totaled $45.1 million as of June 30, 2005, representing a decrease of $7.1 million in the second quarter of 2005. The decrease is primarily due to the payments associated with the previous internal review, restatements and audits of our consolidated financial statements, annual insurance premiums and a contract dispute settlement, which totaled approximately $8.6 million. As of June 30, 2005, we had $27.1 million in domestic cash and cash equivalents. As of June 30, 2005, restricted international cash and cash equivalents held by Autobytel.Europe were $8.6 million for use as directed by Autobytel.Europe. Restricted international cash and cash equivalents are not available to us.

Net cash used in operating activities was $6.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to net cash provided by operating activities of $0.7 million for the same period in 2004. Net cash used in operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2005 resulted from a net loss of $6.1 million for the period, a $3.1 million increase in accounts receivable, $0.7 million increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets and a $0.5 million decrease in accounts payable and accrued expenses, which were partially offset by non-cash charges. The $3.1 million increase in accounts receivable was primarily due to the increase in days sales outstanding from 51 days during the three months ended December 31, 2004 to 57 days for the six months ended June 30, 2005. The $0.7 million increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets was primarily due to the payment of insurance premiums during the first half of 2005, offset by the amortization of the insurance premiums. The $0.5 million decrease in accounts payable and accrued expenses was primarily due to payout of accrued compensation costs in the first half of 2005, offset by professional fees incurred related to the restatements of our consolidated financial statements, internal review, and defending purported class action and derivative lawsuits filed against us and certain current directors and current and former officers.

Net cash provided by operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2004 resulted from net income for the period before non-cash charges and an increase in accounts payable, partially offset by an increase in accounts receivable, prepaid expenses and other current assets coupled with a decrease in accrued expenses, deferred revenues and accrued international licensee liabilities. A $1.2 million increase in accounts receivable was due to higher billing as a result of increased revenues. A $0.4 million increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets was primarily due to the payment of insurance premiums during the first half of 2004, offset by the amortization of the insurance premiums. A $1.4 million decrease in accrued expenses was primarily due to the payout of accrued compensation costs in the first half of 2004. A $0.5 million decrease in deferred revenue is primarily due to revenue recognized for our services provided to Stoneage dealers that were billed prior to the acquisition of Stoneage and international license fees for the first half of 2004 that were billed in December 31, 2003. A $1.5 million decrease in accrued international licensee liabilities was due to payments made in April 2004 by Autobytel.Europe to Autobytel.Europe licensees for amounts due under agreements entered into in March 2002.

Net cash provided by investing activities was $9.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to net cash used in investing activities of $32.0 million for the same period in 2004. Cash provided by investing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2005 was related to the sale and maturities of short-term investment in government sponsored agency bonds and auction rate securities, offset by purchases of short-term and long-term investments in government sponsored agency bonds and auction rate securities and purchases of property and equipment. Cash used in investing activities in the six months ended June 30, 2004 was related to the acquisitions of Stoneage and iDriveonline, net purchases of short-term and long-term investments in government sponsored agency bonds and auction rate securities and purchases of property and equipment, offset by the change in Autobytel.Europe’s cash balance.

Net cash provided by financing activities was nominal for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to $3.4 million for the same period in 2004. Cash provided by financing activities in the six months ended June 30, 2004 was due to proceeds received from the sale of common stock through our employee stock purchase plan and the exercise of stock options, offset by payments of capital lease obligations assumed in the Stoneage acquisition.

We estimate and record allowances for potential bad debts and customer credits based on our historical bad debt and customer credit experience, which is consistent with our past practice.

The allowance for bad debts is our estimate of bad debt expense that could result from the inability or refusal of our customers to pay for our services. Additions to the estimated reserve for bad debts are recorded as an increase in general and administrative expenses. Reductions in the estimated reserve for bad debts are recorded as a decrease in general and administrative expenses. As specific bad debts are identified, they are written-off against the previously established estimated reserve for bad debts and have no impact on operating expenses.

The allowance for customer credits is our estimate of adjustments for services that do not meet our customers’ perceived expectations. Additions to the estimated reserve for customer credits are recorded as a reduction in revenues. Reductions in the estimated reserve for customer credits are recorded as an increase in revenues. As specific customer credits are identified, they are written-off against the previously established estimated reserve for customer credits and have no impact on revenues.

During the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005, we added $0.8 million and $1.8 million, respectively, to our domestic allowances for bad debts and customer credits. Also during the three months and six months ended June 30, 2005, we wrote-off $0.9 million and $1.7 million, respectively, from our previously established allowances for bad debts and customer credits. The write-offs had no impact on our revenues or operating expenses. As of June 30, 2005, our estimated allowances for domestic bad debts and customer credits have increased to $1.1 million, or 6% of gross accounts receivable from $1.0 million, or 5%, of gross accounts receivable as of December 31, 2004.

If there is a decline in the general economic environment that negatively affects the financial condition of our customers or an increase in the number of customers that are dissatisfied with our services, additional estimated allowances for bad debts and customer credits may be required and the impact on our business, results of operations or financial condition could be material.

We do not have debt. We believe our current cash and cash equivalents are sufficient to meet our anticipated cash needs for working capital and capital expenditures for at least the next 12 months.

While we forecast and budget cash requirements, assumptions underlying the estimates may change and could have a material impact on our cash requirements. If our uses of funds vary materially from those currently planned, we may require additional financing sooner than anticipated. We have no commitments for any additional financing, and there can be no assurance that any such commitments can be obtained on favorable terms, if at all.

In 2005, we renewed our leases for our facilities in Irvine, California and Houston, Texas, which expire in September 2010 and April 2006, respectively. Additionally, we entered into a new lease for our facilities in Troy, Michigan, which expires in December 2010. Our contractual commitments associated with these lease obligations totaled $7.1 million as of June 30, 2005.

beginning after June 15, 2005. In accordance with the revised statement, we will be required to recognize the expense attributable to stock options granted or vested subsequent to December 31, 2005. We expect the adoption of SFAS 123R will result in amounts that are similar to the current pro forma disclosures in Note 2 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 153, “Exchanges of Non-monetary Assets, an amendment of APB Opinion No. 29,” (“SFAS 153”). SFAS 153 addresses the measurement of exchanges of non-monetary assets and redefines the scope of transactions that should be measured based on the fair value of the assets exchanged. SFAS 153 is effective for non-monetary asset exchanges occurring in fiscal periods beginning after June 15, 2005. The adoption of SFAS 153 is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

On March 29, 2005, the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 107 which expresses the views of the SEC regarding the interaction between SFAS No. 123R and certain SEC rules and regulations and provides the SEC’s views regarding the valuation of share-based payment arrangements for public companies. In particular, SAB 107 provides guidance related to share-based payment transactions with non-employees, the transition from nonpublic to public entity status, valuation methods (including assumptions such as expected volatility and expected term), the accounting for certain redeemable financial instruments issued under share-based payment arrangements, the classification of compensation expense, non-GAAP financial measures, first-time adoption of SFAS No. 123R in an interim period, capitalization of compensation cost related to share-based payment arrangements, the accounting for income tax effects of share-based payment arrangements upon adoption of SFAS No. 123R, the modification of employee share options prior to adoption of SFAS No. 123R and disclosures in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations subsequent to adoption of SFAS No. 123R. We do not expect the impact SAB 107, which became effective on March 29, 2005, to have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In addition to the factors discussed in the “Overview” and “Liquidity and Capital Resources” sections of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the following additional factors may affect our future results.

We have only been profitable from the fourth quarter of 2002 through the fourth quarter of 2004 and otherwise have a history of net losses. We incurred a loss in the first two quarters of 2005 and cannot assure that we will be profitable in the future. If we are unable to achieve profitability in the future and we lose money, our operations will not be financially viable.

Because of the relatively recent emergence of the Internet-based vehicle information and purchasing industry, none of our senior executives has long-term experience in the industry. This limited operating history contributes to our difficulty in predicting future operating results.

We have incurred losses every quarter through the third quarter of 2002 and have achieved profitability from the fourth quarter of 2002 through the fourth quarter of 2004. We incurred a loss in the first half of 2005, primarily because of the costs related to the restatements of our financial statements and the internal review related to those restatements. We cannot assure that we will be profitable in the future. We had an accumulated deficit of $154.5 million as of June 30, 2005 and $148.4 million as of December 31, 2004.

Our potential for future profitability must be considered in light of the risks, uncertainties, expenses and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in emerging and rapidly evolving markets, such as the market for Internet commerce. We believe that to achieve and sustain profitability, we must, among other things:

We cannot be certain that we will be successful in achieving these goals or that if we are successful in achieving these goals, that we will be profitable in the future.

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. In making its assessment of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, management used the criteria described in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. A material weakness is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that results in a more than remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected.

Management determined that we had material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, and these material weaknesses led to the restatement of our consolidated financial statements for the full 2002 fiscal year, the first, second, and third fiscal quarters of 2003, the full 2003 fiscal year and the first and second fiscal quarters of 2004. The material weaknesses relate to the lack of (1) effective controls over the financial reporting process due to an insufficient complement of personnel with a level of accounting knowledge, experience and training in the application of generally accepted accounting principles commensurate with our financial reporting requirements, and (2) an effective control environment based on criteria established in the Internal Control—Integrated Framework. Because of these material weaknesses, management was unable to conclude that we maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 based on the criteria in the Internal Control—Integrated Framework. Further, the material weaknesses identified resulted in an adverse opinion by our independent registered public accounting firm on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

If we are unable to substantially improve our internal controls, our ability to report our financial results on a timely and accurate basis will continue to be adversely affected, which could have a material adverse affect on our ability to operate our

business. Please see Item 9A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 for more information regarding the measures we have commenced to implement, and which we intend to implement during the course of 2005, which are designed to remediate the deficiencies in our internal controls described in our Management’s Report On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting set forth on page F-2 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. The costs of remediating such deficiencies in our internal controls will adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, even after the remedial measures discussed in Item 9A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 are fully implemented, our internal controls will not prevent all potential error and fraud, because any control system, no matter how well designed, can only provide reasonable and not absolute assurance that the objectives of the control system will be achieved.

The impact of ongoing purported class action and derivative litigation may be material. We are also subject to the risk of additional litigation and regulatory action in connection with the restatement of our consolidated financial statements and the potential liability from any such litigation or regulatory action could harm our business.

We recently restated our consolidated financial statements for the full 2002 fiscal year, the full 2003 fiscal year, the first, second and third fiscal quarters of 2003, and the first and second fiscal quarters of 2004. We, and certain of our present directors and present and former officers, are defendants in certain purported class action litigations pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The claims were brought on behalf of our stockholders who purchased shares during the period July 24, 2003 through October 21, 2004. The claims in all of these purported class actions are virtually identical, and purport to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In this regard, the plaintiffs allege that we misrepresented and omitted material facts with respect to our financial results and operations during the time period between July 24, 2003 and October 20, 2004. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as accountants’ and experts’ fees.

On January 28, 2005, the court ordered the consolidation of the currently pending class actions into a single case pursuant to a stipulation for consolidation signed by all parties. On March 14, 2005, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel. On June 30, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed and served a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The putative class period is July 24, 2003 to October 21, 2004. Defendants filed and served a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on August 1, 2005. The hearing is currently set for November 2005. Additional lawsuits asserting the same or similar claims may be filed as well. We intend to defend the claims vigorously. However, we cannot currently predict the impact or outcome of this litigation, which could be material, and the initiation, continuation and outcome of these lawsuits may have a material impact on our results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, our directors and a former officer are defendants in a derivative suit pending in the Superior Court of Orange County, California, and we are named as a nominal defendant in this suit. This suit purports to allege that the defendants breached numerous duties to us, including breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of information, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, as well as violations of California Corporations Code 25402 (trading with material non-public information), and that these breaches and violations caused losses to us, including damages to our reputation and goodwill. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on allegations that the defendants disseminated false and misleading statements concerning our results of operations and that these results were inflated at all relevant times due to violations of generally accepted accounting principles and Securities and Exchange Commission rules. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, treble damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as accountants’ and experts’ fees. Plaintiffs filed and served an Amended Derivative Complaint on July 29, 2005. Pursuant to stipulated order, defendants’ response to this Amended Derivative Complaint is due in September 2005. We intend to defend this suit vigorously. However, we cannot currently predict the impact or outcome of this litigation, which could be material, and the continuation and outcome of this lawsuit, as well as the initiation of similar suits may have a material impact on our results of operations and financial condition.

As a result of the restatement of our consolidated financial statements described above, we could become subject to additional purported class action, derivative, or other securities litigation. In addition, regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, could commence an investigation relating to the restatement of our consolidated financial statements. As of the date hereof, we are not aware of any additional litigation or investigation having been commenced against us related to these matters, but we cannot predict whether any such litigation or regulatory investigation will be commenced or, if it is, the outcome of any such litigation or investigation. If any such investigation were to result in a regulatory proceeding or action against us, our business and financial condition could be harmed. The initiation of any additional securities litigation, together with the lawsuits described above, may also harm our business and financial condition.

Until the existing purported class action and derivative litigation or any additional litigation or regulatory investigation is resolved, it may be more difficult for us to raise additional capital or incur indebtedness or other obligations. If an unfavorable result occurred in any such action, our business and financial condition could be further harmed.

We will incur substantial expenses in connection with ongoing purported class action and derivative litigation and possible related regulatory investigations which will materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

We will incur substantial expenses in connection with purported class action and derivative litigation and possible related regulatory investigations in connection with the restatement of our consolidated financial statements, including substantial fees for attorneys and other professional advisors. We are also obligated to indemnify our current and former officers and current directors named as defendants in such actions. These expenses, to the extent not covered by available insurance, will materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

We will incur substantial expenses relating to remediation of material weaknesses in our internal controls identified in our internal review related to the restatement of our consolidated financial statements for certain prior periods, which will materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

We will incur substantial expenses relating to the remediation of material weaknesses in our internal controls identified in our internal review related to the restatement of our consolidated financial statements for the full 2002 fiscal year, the first, second, and third fiscal quarters of 2003, the full 2003 fiscal year, and the first and second fiscal quarters of 2004. These expenses will materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Our failure to comply with certain conditions required for our common stock to be listed on The Nasdaq National Market could result in the delisting of our common stock from The Nasdaq National Market.

As a result of our failure to timely file our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2004, our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005, and certain required restatements of our financial statements for prior periods, from November 2004 to May 2005 we were not in full compliance with Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14), which requires us to make, on a timely basis, all filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We are required to comply with Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) as a condition for our common stock to continue to be listed on The Nasdaq National Market.

We requested and received from a Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel (the “Panel”) several extensions within which to comply with Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14). On April 7, 2005, we received an extension to the deadline to come into full compliance with Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) to May 15, 2005, which deadline was subsequently extended by the Panel to May 31, 2005. The Panel’s decision to continue the listing of our shares on The Nasdaq National Market was subject to the condition that we file, on or before May 31, 2005, our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2004, our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005, and certain required restatements of our financial statements for prior periods. We have now complied with this condition. In addition, our continued listing is conditioned on us timely filing all periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission and The Nasdaq Stock Market for all reporting periods ending on or before December 31, 2006. The filing of a Form 12b-25 extension request will not result in an automatic extension of these filing deadlines.

On May 20, 2005, we received notice from The Nasdaq Stock Market that the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council (the “Listing Council”) has called for a review of the Panel’s April 7, 2005 decision. On June 30, 2004, we submitted additional information for the Listing Council’s consideration. We cannot give any assurances as to what actions the Listing Council may take, but such actions could include delisting our shares from The Nasdaq National Market. We cannot provide any assurance that our shares will not be delisted as a result of the Listing Council review process. In addition, if we are unable to comply with the conditions for continued listing required by the Panel, then our shares of common stock are subject to immediate delisting from The Nasdaq National Market. If our shares of common stock are delisted from The Nasdaq National Market, they may not be eligible to trade on any national securities exchange or the over-the-counter market. If our common stock is no longer traded through a market system, it may not be liquid, which could affect its price. In addition, we may be unable to obtain future equity financing, or use our common stock as consideration for mergers or other business combinations. We intend to appeal any decision to delist our shares from The Nasdaq National Market, but cannot provide any assurance that our appeal will be successful. Any such appeal will not stay the decision to delist our shares.

If our dealer attrition increases, our dealer networks and revenues derived from these networks may decrease.

The majority of our revenues are derived from fees paid by our networks of participating retail and enterprise dealers. A few agreements account for substantially all of our enterprise dealer relationships. From time to time, a major dealer group or automotive manufacturer may significantly increase or decrease the number of enterprise dealers participating in our dealer networks or the number of purchase requests accepted from us. If dealer attrition increases or the number of purchase requests accepted from us decreases and we are unable to add new dealers to mitigate the attrition or decrease in number of accepted requests, our revenues will decrease. A material factor affecting dealer attrition is our ability to provide dealers with high quality purchase requests at prices acceptable to dealers. High quality purchase requests are those that result in high closing ratios. Closing ratio is the ratio of the number of vehicles purchased at a dealer generated from purchase requests to the total number of purchase requests sent to that dealer. If the number of dealers in our networks declines or dealers reduce the services they receive from us, our revenues will decrease and our business, results of operations and financial condition will be materially and adversely affected. In addition, if automotive manufacturers or major dealer groups force us to decrease the fees we charge for our services, our revenues will decline which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Generally, our retail dealer agreements are cancelable by either party upon 30 days notice. Participating retail dealers may terminate their relationship with us for any reason, including an unwillingness to accept our subscription terms or as a result of joining alternative marketing programs. We cannot assure that retail dealers will not terminate their agreements with us. Our business is dependent upon our ability to attract and retain qualified new and used vehicle retail dealers, major dealer groups and automotive manufacturers. In order for us to grow or maintain our dealer networks, we need to reduce our dealer attrition. We cannot assure that we will be able to reduce the level of dealer attrition, and our failure to do so could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may lose participating retail dealers because of the reconfiguration or elimination of exclusive dealer territories. We will lose the revenues associated with any reductions in participating retail dealers resulting from such changes.

We may reduce, reconfigure or eliminate exclusive territories currently assigned to Autobytel, CarSmart or Car.com retail dealers. If a retail dealer is unwilling to accept a reduction, reconfiguration or elimination of its exclusive territory, it may terminate its relationship with us. A retail dealer also could sue to prevent such reduction, reconfiguration or elimination, or collect damages from us. We have experienced one such lawsuit. A material decrease in the number of retail dealers participating in our networks or litigation with retail dealers could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We send some individual purchase requests to multiple retail dealers. As a result, we may lose participating retail dealers and may be subject to pressure on the fees we charge such dealers for such purchase requests. We will lose the revenues associated with any reductions in participating retail dealers or fees.

We send some individual purchase requests to multiple retail dealers to enhance consumer satisfaction and experience. If a retail dealer perceives such requests as having less value, it may request that fees be reduced or may terminate its relationship with us. A material decrease in the number of retail dealers participating in our networks or the fees such dealers pay us could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We rely heavily on our participating dealers to promote our brand value by providing high quality services to our consumers. If dealers do not provide our consumers high quality services, our brand value will diminish and the number of consumers who use our services may decline causing a decrease in our revenues.

Promotion of our brand value depends on our ability to provide consumers a high quality experience for purchasing vehicles throughout the purchasing process. If our dealers do not provide consumers with high quality service, the value of our brands could be damaged and the number of consumers using our services may decrease. We devote significant efforts to train participating retail dealers in practices that are intended to increase consumer satisfaction. Our inability to train retail dealers effectively, or the failure by participating dealers to adopt recommended practices, respond rapidly and professionally to vehicle inquiries, or sell and lease vehicles in accordance with our marketing strategies, could result in low consumer satisfaction, damage our brand names and materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Competition could reduce our market share and harm our financial performance. Our market is competitive not only because the Internet has minimal technical barriers to entry, but also because we compete directly with other companies in the offline environment.

Our vehicle purchasing services compete against a variety of Internet and traditional vehicle purchasing services, automotive brokers and classified advertisement providers. Therefore, we are affected by the competitive factors faced by both Internet commerce companies as well as traditional, offline companies within the automotive and automotive-related industries. The market for Internet-based commercial services is relatively new. Competition has increased significantly in 2005. Our business is characterized by minimal technical barriers to entry, and new competitors can launch a competitive service at relatively low cost. To compete successfully, we must significantly increase awareness of our services and brand names and deliver satisfactory value to our customers. Failure to compete successfully will cause our revenues to decline and would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We compete with other entities which maintain similar commercial Web sites including AutoNation’s AutoUSA, Microsoft Corporation’s MSN Autos, CarsDirect.com, Cars.com, eBayMotors.com, Dealix.com, and AutoTrader.com. We also compete with vehicle dealers that are not part of our networks. Such companies may already maintain or may introduce Web sites which compete with ours. We also compete indirectly against vehicle brokerage firms and affinity programs offered by several companies, including Costco Wholesale Corporation and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. In addition, all major automotive manufacturers have their own Web sites and many have launched online buying services, such as General Motors Corporation’s BuyPower and Ford Motor Company in its partnership with its dealers through FordDirect.com. The Web Control product competes with products from companies such as Reynolds and Reynolds and Cobalt Systems Corporation. Our customer relationship management product, RPM, competes with companies that provide marketing services to automotive manufacturers and dealers, including Reynolds and Reynolds, TVI Inc., Minacs, Online Administrators and Teletech.

We cannot assure that we can compete successfully against current or future competitors, many of which have substantially more capital, existing brand recognition, resources and access to additional financing. In addition, competitive pressures may result in increased marketing costs, decreased Web site traffic or loss of market share or otherwise may materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our quarterly financial results are subject to significant fluctuations which may make it difficult for investors to predict our future performance.

Our quarterly operating results have fluctuated in the past and may fluctuate in the future due to many factors. Our expense levels are based in part on our expectations of future revenues which may vary significantly. If revenues do not increase faster than expenses, our business, results of operations and financial condition will be materially and adversely affected. Other factors that may adversely affect our quarterly operating results include:

Seasonality is likely to cause fluctuations in our operating results. Investors may not be able to predict our annual operating results based on a quarter to quarter comparison of our operating results.

The seasonal patterns of Internet usage and vehicle purchasing do not completely overlap. Historically, Internet usage typically declines during summer and certain holiday periods, while vehicle purchasing in the United States is strongest in the spring and summer months. In addition, purchase request volume usually declines in the summer because of the model year change over, as some consumers defer purchases until information regarding the new model year is available, and many manufacturers do not make their data available for publication until later in the year. As seasonality occurs, investors may not be able to predict our annual operating results based on a quarter to quarter comparison of our operating results. Seasonality in the automotive industry, Internet and commercial online service usage and advertising expenditures is likely to cause fluctuations in our operating results and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Employee pricing and other actions by manufacturers that promote transparent pricing may decrease the perceived value of our services to consumers and dealers. If the number of consumers and dealers who use our services declines, our revenues will decrease.

In the summer of 2005, some manufacturers introduced programs allowing all consumers to purchase new vehicles at prices offered to employees. Employee pricing and future actions by manufacturers that promote transparent pricing may negatively affect the perceived value of our services to consumers and dealers. A decline in the perceived value of our

services to consumers and dealers may result in a decline in demand for our services, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be particularly affected by general economic conditions due to the nature of the automotive industry.

The economic strength of the automotive industry significantly impacts the revenues we derive from dealers, automotive manufacturers and other strategic partners, advertising revenues and consumer traffic to our Web sites. The automotive industry is cyclical, with vehicle sales fluctuating due to changes in national and global economic forces. Purchases of vehicles are typically discretionary for consumers and may be particularly affected by negative trends in the general economy. The success of our operations depends to a significant extent upon a number of factors relating to discretionary consumer spending, including economic conditions (and perceptions of such conditions by consumers) affecting disposable consumer income (such as employment, wages and salaries, business conditions and interest rates in regional and local markets). In addition, because the purchase of a vehicle is a significant investment and is relatively discretionary, any reduction in disposable income in general or a general increase in interest rates or a general tightening of lending may affect us more significantly than companies in other industries.

Zero percent financing and other incentives offered by manufacturers in 2003 and 2004 and employee pricing offered to all consumers by some manufacturers in 2005 may negatively affect vehicle sales in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Consumers may have accelerated their planned vehicle purchases from 2005 to 2004 and 2003 and from 2006 to 2005. At some point in the future, manufacturers may decrease current levels of incentive spending on new vehicles, which has served to drive sales volume in the past. Such a reduction in incentives could lead to a decline in demand for new vehicles. A decline in vehicle purchases may result in a decline in demand for our services which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Threatened terrorist acts and the ongoing military action have created uncertainties in the automotive industry and domestic and international economies in general. These events may have an adverse impact on general economic conditions, which may reduce demand for vehicles and consequently our services and products which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. At this time, however, we are not able to predict the nature, extent and duration of these effects on overall economic conditions on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We cannot assure that our business will not be materially adversely affected as a result of an industry or general economic downturn.

If any of our relationships with Internet search engines or online automotive information providers terminates, our purchase request volume or quality could decline. If our purchase request volume or quality declines, our participating dealers may not be satisfied with our services and may terminate their relationships with us or force us to decrease the fees we charge for our services. If this occurs, our revenues would decrease.

We depend on a number of strategic relationships to direct a substantial amount of purchase requests and traffic to our Web sites. The termination of any of these relationships or any significant reduction in traffic to Web sites on which our services are advertised or offered, or the failure to develop additional referral sources, could cause our purchase request volume or quality to decline. If this occurs, dealers may no longer be satisfied with our services and may terminate their relationships with us or force us to decrease the fees we charge for our services. If our dealers terminate their relationships with us or force us to decrease the fees we charge for our services, our revenues will decline which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We receive a significant number of purchase requests through a limited number of Internet search engines, online automotive information providers, and other auto related Internet sites. We periodically negotiate revisions to existing agreements and these revisions could increase our costs in future periods. A number of our agreements with online service providers may be terminated without cause. We may not be able to maintain our relationship with our online service providers or find alternative, comparable marketing sponsorships and alliances capable of originating significant numbers of purchase requests on terms satisfactory to us. If we cannot maintain or replace our relationships with online service providers, our revenues may decline which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If any of our relationships with advertising manufacturers terminates, our revenues would decrease.

We depend on a number of manufacturer relationships for substantially all of our advertising revenues. The termination of any of these relationships or any significant failure to develop additional sources of advertising would cause our revenues to decline which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We

periodically negotiate revisions to existing agreements and these revisions could decrease our advertising revenues in future periods. A number of our agreements with such manufacturers may be terminated without cause. We may not be able to maintain our relationship with such manufacturers on favorable terms or find alternative comparable relationships capable of replacing advertising revenues on terms satisfactory to us. If we cannot do so, our revenues would decline which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If we cannot build and maintain strong brand loyalty our business may suffer.

We believe that the importance of brand recognition will increase as more companies engage in commerce over the Internet. Development and awareness of the Autobytel.com, Autoweb.com, Car.com, CarSmart.com and other brands will depend largely on our ability to obtain a leadership position in Internet commerce. If dealers and manufacturers do not perceive us as an effective channel for increasing vehicle sales, or consumers do not perceive us as offering reliable information concerning new and used vehicles, as well as referrals to high quality dealers, in a user-friendly manner that reduces the time spent for vehicle purchases, we will be unsuccessful in promoting and maintaining our brands. Our brands may not be able to gain widespread acceptance among consumers or dealers. Our failure to develop our brands sufficiently would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If we lose our key personnel or are unable to attract, train and retain additional highly qualified sales, marketing, managerial and technical personnel, our business may suffer.

Our future success depends on our ability to identify, hire, train and retain highly qualified sales, marketing, managerial and technical personnel. In addition, as we introduce new services we may need to hire additional personnel. We may not be able to attract, assimilate or retain such personnel in the future. The inability to attract and retain the necessary managerial, technical, sales and marketing personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our business and operations are substantially dependent on the performance of our executive officers and key employees. The loss of the services of one or more of our executive officers or key employees could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are a relatively new business in an emerging industry and need to manage our growth and our entry into new business areas in order to avoid increased expenses without corresponding revenues.

We have been introducing new services to consumers and dealers in order to establish ourselves as a leader in the evolving market for automotive marketing services. The growth of our operations requires us to increase expenditures before we generate revenues. For example, we may need to hire personnel to oversee the introduction of new services before we generate revenues from these services. Our inability to generate satisfactory revenues from such expanded services to offset costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If federal or state franchise laws apply to us we may be required to modify or eliminate our marketing programs. If we are unable to market our services in the manner we currently do, our revenues may decrease and our business may suffer.

We believe that neither our relationship with our dealers nor our dealer subscription agreements constitute “franchises” under federal or state franchise laws. A federal court of appeals in Michigan has ruled that our dealer subscription agreement is not a “franchise” under Michigan law. However, if any state’s regulatory requirements relating to franchises or our method of business impose additional requirements on us or include us within an industry-specific regulatory scheme, we may be

required to modify our marketing programs in such states in a manner which undermines the program’s attractiveness to consumers or dealers. If our relationship or written agreement with our dealers were found to be a “franchise” under federal or state franchise laws, we could be subject to other regulations, such as franchise disclosure and registration requirements and limitations on our ability to effect changes in our relationships with our dealers, which may negatively impact our ability to compete and cause our revenues to decrease and our business to suffer. If we become subject to fines or other penalties or if we determine that the franchise and related requirements are overly burdensome, we may elect to terminate operations in such state. In each case, our revenues may decline and our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

We also believe that our dealer marketing service generally does not qualify as an automobile brokerage activity and, therefore, state motor vehicle dealer or broker licensing requirements do not apply to us. Through a subsidiary, we are licensed as a motor vehicle dealer and broker. In response to Texas Department of Transportation concerns, we modified our marketing program in that state to make our program open to all dealers who wish to apply. In addition, we modified the program to include a pricing model under which all participating dealers, regardless of brand, in a given zip code in Texas are charged uniform fees. If other states’ regulatory requirements relating to motor vehicle dealers or brokers are deemed applicable to us, we may become subject to fines, penalties or other requirements and may be required to modify our marketing programs in such states in a manner that undermines the attractiveness of the program to consumers or dealers. If we determine that the licensing or other requirements, in a given state are overly burdensome, we may elect to terminate operations in such state. In each case, our revenues may decline and our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

If financial broker and insurance licensing requirements apply to us in states where we are not currently licensed, we will be required to obtain additional licenses and our business may suffer.

If we are required to be licensed as a financial broker, it may result in an expensive and time-consuming process that could divert the effort of management away from day-to-day operations. In the event states require us to be licensed and we are unable to do so, or are otherwise unable to comply with regulations required by changes in current operations or the introduction of new services, we could be subject to fines or other penalties or be compelled to discontinue operations in such states, and our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

We provide links on our Web sites so consumers can receive real time quotes for insurance coverage from third parties and submit quote applications online through such parties’ Web sites. We receive fees from such participants in connection with this advertising activity. We do not believe that such activities require us to be licensed under state insurance laws. The use of the Internet in the marketing of insurance products, however, is a relatively new practice. It is not clear whether or to what extent state insurance licensing laws apply to activities similar to ours. Given these uncertainties, we currently hold, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, insurance agent licenses or are otherwise authorized to transact insurance in numerous states.

If we are unable to be licensed to comply with additional regulations, or are otherwise unable to comply with regulations required by changes in current operations or the introduction of new services, we could be subject to fines or other penalties or be compelled to discontinue operations in such states, and our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

There are many risks associated with consummated and potential acquisitions.

We may evaluate potential acquisitions which we believe will complement or enhance our existing business. However, currently we do not expect to consummate acquisitions in the near future as we focus on our business and remedial actions necessary to address material weaknesses in our internal controls identified in our internal review. If we acquire other companies in the future, it may dilute the value of existing stockholders’ ownership. The impact of dilution may restrict our ability or otherwise not allow us to consummate acquisitions. Issuance of equity securities may restrict utilization of net operating loss carryforwards because of an annual limitation due to ownership change limitations under the Internal Revenue Code. We may also incur debt and losses related to the impairment of goodwill and acquired intangible assets if we acquire another company, and this could negatively impact our results of operations. We currently do not have any definitive agreements to acquire any company or business, and we may not be able to identify or complete any acquisition in the future.

Internet commerce has yet to attract significant regulation. Government regulations may result in increased costs that may reduce our future earnings.

There are currently few laws or regulations that apply directly to the Internet. Because our business is dependent on the Internet, the adoption of new local, state or national laws or regulations may decrease the growth of Internet usage or the acceptance of Internet commerce which could, in turn, decrease the demand for our services and increase our costs or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Tax authorities in a number of states are currently reviewing the appropriate tax treatment of companies engaged in Internet commerce. New state tax regulations may subject us to additional state sales, use and income taxes.

Evolving government regulations may require future licensing which could increase administrative costs or adversely affect our revenues.

In a regulatory climate that is uncertain, our operations may be subject to direct and indirect adoption, expansion or reinterpretation of various laws and regulations. Compliance with these future laws and regulations may require us to obtain appropriate licenses at an undeterminable and possibly significant initial monetary and annual expense. These additional monetary expenditures may increase future overhead, thereby potentially reducing our future results of operations.

We have identified what we believe are the areas of domestic government regulation, which if changed, would be costly to us. These laws and regulations include franchise laws, motor vehicle brokerage licensing laws, motor vehicle dealer licensing laws, insurance licensing laws and financial services laws, which are or may be applicable to aspects of our business. There could be laws and regulations applicable to our business which we have not identified or which, if changed, may be costly to us.

Our success is dependent on keeping pace with advances in technology. If we are unable to keep pace with advances in technology, consumers may stop using our services and our revenues will decrease. If we are required to invest substantial amounts in technology, our results of operations will suffer.

The Internet and electronic commerce markets are characterized by rapid technological change, changes in user and customer requirements, frequent new service and product introductions embodying new technologies and the emergence of new industry standards and practices that could render our existing Web sites and technology obsolete. These market characteristics are exacerbated by the emerging nature of the market and the fact that many companies are expected to introduce new Internet products and services in the near future. If we are unable to adapt to changing technologies, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected. Our performance will depend, in part, on our ability to continue to enhance our existing services, develop new technology that addresses the increasingly sophisticated and varied needs of our prospective customers, license leading technologies and respond to technological advances and emerging industry standards and practices on a timely and cost-effective basis. The development of our Web sites and CRM systems and other proprietary technology entails significant technical and business risks. We may not be successful in using new technologies effectively or adapting our Web sites and CRM systems, or other proprietary technology to customer requirements or to emerging industry standards. In addition, if we are required to invest substantial amounts in technology in order to keep pace with technological advances, our results of operations will suffer.

We are vulnerable to electricity blackouts and communications system interruptions. The majority of our primary servers are located in a single location. If electricity or communications to that location or to our headquarters were interrupted, our operations would be adversely affected.

With the exception of the finance.car.com Web site, the ADS production servers and certain related systems, our production Web sites and certain systems, including Autobytel.com, Autoweb.com, CarSmart.com, AutoSite.com, Car.com, AVV.com, iDriveonline and RPM are currently hosted at secure third-party hosting facilities. We host the finance.car.com Web site and certain related systems at Car.com’s facilities and we host the ADS production servers at AVV’s facilities. Although backup servers are available, our primary servers are vulnerable to interruption by damage from fire, earthquake, flood, power loss, telecommunications failure, break-ins and other events beyond our control. In the event that we experience significant system disruptions, our business, results of operations and financial condition would be materially and adversely affected. We have, from time to time, experienced periodic systems interruptions and anticipate that such interruptions will occur in the future.

Our main production systems and our accounting, finance and contract management systems are hosted in secure facilities with generators and other alternate power supplies in case of a power outage. However, our corporate offices, where we have the users and limited applications for our accounting, finance and contract management systems, are vulnerable to wide-scale power outages. To date, we have not been significantly affected by blackouts or other interruptions in service. In the event we are affected by interruptions in service, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

We maintain business interruption insurance which pays up to $8.6 million for the actual loss of business income sustained due to the suspension of operations as a result of direct physical loss of or damage to property at our offices. However, in the event of a prolonged interruption, this business interruption insurance may not be sufficient to fully compensate us for the resulting losses.

Internet commerce is relatively new and evolving with few profitable business models. We cannot assure that our business model will be profitable in the future.

The market for Internet-based purchasing services has only recently begun to develop and is rapidly evolving. While many Internet commerce companies have grown in terms of revenues, few are profitable. We cannot assure that we will be profitable. As is typical for a new and rapidly evolving industry, demand and market acceptance for recently introduced services and products over the Internet are subject to a high level of uncertainty and there are few proven services and products. Moreover, since the market for our services is new and evolving, it is difficult to predict the future growth rate, if any, and size of this market.

If consumers do not continue to adopt Internet commerce as a mainstream medium of commerce or if automotive industry participants do not continue to accept the role of third-party online services, our revenues may not grow and our earnings may suffer.

The success of our services will continue to depend upon the adoption of the Internet by consumers and dealers as a mainstream medium for commerce and/or the willingness of automotive manufacturers to cooperate with third-party services. While we believe that our services offer significant advantages to consumers and dealers, there can be no assurance of continued acceptance of our services by consumers, dealers or automotive companies. Our success assumes that consumers and dealers who have historically relied upon traditional means of commerce to purchase or lease vehicles, and to procure vehicle financing and insurance, will continue to accept new methods of conducting business and exchanging information and that automotive manufacturers will continue to accept a role for all make, all model third-party sites such as ours that allow for comparisons. In addition, dealers must continue to adopt new selling models and be trained to use and invest in developing technologies. If the market for Internet-based vehicle marketing services fails to develop, develops slower than expected, faces opposition or becomes saturated with competitors, or if our services do not continue to be accepted, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be materially and adversely affected.

Internet-related issues may reduce or slow the growth in the use of our services in the future.

Critical issues concerning the commercial use of the Internet, such as ease of access, security, privacy, reliability, cost, and quality of service, remain unresolved and may impact the growth of Internet use. If Internet usage continues to increase rapidly, the Internet infrastructure may not be able to support the demands placed on it by this growth, and its performance and reliability may decline. The recent growth in Internet traffic has caused frequent periods of decreased performance,

outages and delays. Our ability to increase the speed with which we provide services to consumers and to increase the scope and quality of such services is limited by and dependent upon the speed and reliability of the Internet, which is beyond our control. If periods of decreased performance, outages or delays on the Internet occur frequently or other critical issues concerning the Internet are not resolved, overall Internet usage or usage of our Web sites could increase more slowly or decline, which would cause our business, results of operations and financial condition to be materially and adversely affected.

The public market for our common stock may continue to be volatile, especially since market prices for Internet-related and technology stocks have often been unrelated to operating performance.

Prior to the initial public offering of our common stock in March 1999, there was no public market for our common stock. We cannot assure that an active trading market will be sustained or that the market price of the common stock will not decline. Recently, the stock market in general and the shares of emerging companies in particular have experienced significant price fluctuations. The market price of our common stock is likely to continue to be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to factors such as:

Further, the stock markets, and in particular the Nasdaq National Market, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have particularly affected the market prices of equity securities of many technology companies and have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of such companies. These broad market factors have and may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. In addition, general economic, political and market conditions, such as recessions, interest rates, international currency fluctuations, terrorist acts, military actions or wars, may adversely affect the market price of the common stock. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies with publicly traded securities. Such litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Changing legislation affecting the automotive industry could require increased regulatory and lobbying costs and may harm our business.

Our services may result in changing the way vehicles are sold which may be viewed as threatening by new and used vehicle dealers who do not subscribe to our programs. Such businesses are often represented by influential lobbying organizations, and such organizations or other persons may propose legislation which could impact the evolving marketing and distribution model which our services promote. Should current laws be changed or new laws passed, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected. As we introduce new services, we may need to comply with additional licensing regulations and regulatory requirements.

To date, we have not spent significant resources on lobbying or related government affairs issues but we may need to do so in the future. A significant increase in the amount we spend on lobbying or related activities could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

International activities may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Our licensees currently have Web sites in the United Kingdom, Sweden, The Netherlands and Japan. Revenue from our licensees may be adversely affected by risks in conducting business in their markets, such as regulatory requirements, changes in political conditions, potentially weaker intellectual property protections and educating consumers and dealers who may be unfamiliar with the benefits of online marketing and commerce. In addition, our investment in licensees may be impaired. We may expand our brand into other foreign markets primarily through licensing our trade names. In the past we incurred losses in our international activities. We cannot be certain that we will be successful in introducing or marketing our services abroad. Our results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected by our international activities.

Our computer infrastructure may be vulnerable to security breaches. Any such problems could jeopardize confidential information transmitted over the Internet, cause interruptions in our operations or cause us to have liability to third persons.

Our computer infrastructure is potentially vulnerable to physical or electronic computer break-ins, viruses and similar disruptive problems and security breaches. Any such problems or security breaches could cause us to have liability to one or more third parties and disrupt all or part of our operations. A party able to circumvent our security measures could misappropriate proprietary information, customer information or consumer information, jeopardize the confidential nature of information transmitted over the Internet or cause interruptions in our operations. Concerns over the security of Internet transactions and the privacy of users could also inhibit the growth of the Internet in general, particularly as a means of conducting commercial transactions. To the extent that our activities or those of third-party contractors involve the storage and transmission of proprietary information such as personal financial information, security breaches could expose us to a risk of financial loss, litigation and other liabilities. Our current insurance program may protect us against some, but not all, of such losses. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We depend on continued technological improvements in our systems and in the Internet overall. If we are unable to handle an unexpectedly large increase in volume of consumers using our Web sites, we cannot assure our consumers or dealers that purchase requests will be efficiently processed and our business may suffer.

If the Internet continues to experience significant growth in the number of users and the level of use, then the Internet infrastructure may not be able to continue to support the demands placed on it by such potential growth. The Internet may not continue to be a viable commercial medium because of inadequate development of the necessary infrastructure, timely development of complementary products, delays in the development or adoption of new standards and protocols required to handle increased levels of Internet activity or increased government regulation.

An unexpectedly large increase in the volume or pace of traffic on our Web sites or the number of orders placed by customers may require us to expand and further upgrade our technology, transaction-processing systems and network infrastructure. We may not be able to accurately project the rate or timing of increases, if any, in the use of our Web sites or expand and upgrade our systems and infrastructure to accommodate such increases. In addition, we cannot assure that our dealers will efficiently process purchase requests.

Any of such failures regarding the Internet in general or our Web sites, technology systems and infrastructure in particular, or with respect to our dealers, would have a material and adverse affect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Misappropriation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights could impair our competitive position.

Our ability to compete depends upon our proprietary systems and technology. While we rely on trademark, trade secret, patent and copyright law, confidentiality agreements and technical measures to protect our proprietary rights, we believe that the technical and creative skills of our personnel, continued development of our proprietary systems and technology, brand name recognition and reliable Web site maintenance are more essential in establishing and maintaining a leadership position and strengthening our brands. As part of our confidentiality procedures, we generally enter into confidentiality agreements with our employees and consultants and limit access to our trade secrets and technology. Despite our efforts to protect our

proprietary rights, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of our services or to obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary. Policing unauthorized use of our proprietary rights is difficult. We cannot assure that the steps taken by us will prevent misappropriation of technology or that the agreements entered into for that purpose will be enforceable. Effective trademark, service mark, patent, copyright and trade secret protection may not be available in every country in which our products and services are made available online. In addition, litigation may be necessary to enforce or protect our intellectual property rights or to defend against claims or infringement or invalidity. We filed one such lawsuit, which is currently pending, to protect our patent. Such litigation, even if successful, could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and management attention and could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. Misappropriation of our intellectual property or potential litigation could also have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We face risk of claims from third parties relating to intellectual property. In addition, we may incur liability for retrieving and transmitting information over the Internet. Such claims and liabilities could harm our business.

As part of our business, we make Internet services and content available to our customers. This creates the potential for claims to be made against us, either directly or through contractual indemnification provisions with third parties. We could face liability for information retrieved from or transmitted over the Internet and liability for products sold over the Internet. We could be exposed to liability with respect to third-party information that may be accessible through our Web sites, links or car review services. Such claims might, for example, be made for defamation, negligence, patent, copyright or trademark infringement, personal injury, breach of contract, unfair competition, false advertising, invasion of privacy or other legal theories based on the nature, content or copying of these materials. Such claims might assert, among other things, that, by directly or indirectly providing links to Web sites operated by third parties, we should be liable for copyright or trademark infringement or other wrongful actions by such third parties through such Web sites. It is also possible that, if any third-party content information provided on our Web sites contains errors, consumers could make claims against us for losses incurred in reliance on such information. Any claims could result in costly litigation, divert management’s attention and resources, cause delays in releasing new or upgrading existing services or require us to enter into royalty or licensing agreements.

We also enter into agreements with other companies under which any revenue that results from the purchase of services through direct links to or from our Web sites is shared. Such arrangements may expose us to additional legal risks and uncertainties, including disputes with such parties regarding revenue sharing, local, state and federal government regulation and potential liabilities to consumers of these services, even if we do not provide the services ourselves. We cannot assure that any indemnification provided to us in our agreements with these parties, if available, will be adequate.

Even to the extent such claims do not result in liability to us, we could incur significant costs in investigating and defending against such claims. The imposition upon us of potential liability for information carried on or disseminated through our system could require us to implement measures to reduce our exposure to such liability, which might require the expenditure of substantial resources or limit the attractiveness of our services to consumers, dealers and others.

Litigation regarding intellectual property rights is common in the Internet and software industries. We expect that Internet technologies and software products and services may be increasingly subject to third-party infringement claims as the number of competitors in our industry segment grows and the functionality of products in different industry segments overlaps. There can be no assurance that our services do not infringe on the intellectual property rights of third parties.

In the past, plaintiffs have brought these types of claims and sometimes successfully litigated them against online services. Our general liability insurance may not cover all potential claims to which we are exposed and may not be adequate to indemnify us for all liability that may be imposed. Any imposition of liability that is not covered by insurance or is in excess of our insurance coverage could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We could be adversely affected by litigation. If we were subject to a significant adverse litigation outcome, our financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

We are a defendant in certain proceedings which are described in “Part II. Item 1. Legal Proceedings” herein.

From time to time, we are involved in other litigation matters arising from the normal course of our business activities. The actions filed against us and other litigation, even if not meritorious, could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and management attention and an adverse outcome in litigation could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are uncertain of our ability to obtain additional financing for our future capital needs. If we are unable to obtain additional financing we may not be able to continue to operate our business.

We currently anticipate that our cash, cash equivalents and short-term and long-term investments will be sufficient to meet our anticipated needs for working capital and other cash requirements at least for the next 12 months. We may need to raise additional funds sooner, however, in order to develop new or enhance existing services or products or to respond to competitive pressures. There can be no assurance that additional financing will be available on terms favorable to us, or at all. If adequate funds are not available or are not available on acceptable terms, our ability to develop or enhance services or products or respond to competitive pressures would be significantly limited. In addition, our ability to continue to operate our business may also be materially adversely affected in the event additional financing is not available when required. Such limitation could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, stockholder rights plan and Delaware law contain provisions that could discourage a third party from acquiring us or limit the price third parties are willing to pay for our stock.

Provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws relating to our corporate governance and provisions in our stockholder rights plan could make it difficult for a third party to acquire us, and could discourage a third party from attempting to acquire control of us. These provisions allow us to issue preferred stock with rights senior to those of the common stock without any further vote or action by the stockholders. These provisions provide that the board of directors is divided into three classes, which may have the effect of delaying or preventing changes in control or change in our management because less than a majority of the board of directors are up for election at each annual meeting. In addition, these provisions impose various procedural and other requirements which could make it more difficult for stockholders to effect corporate actions such as a merger, asset sale or other change of control of us. Under the stockholder rights plan, if a person or group acquires 15% or more of our common stock, all rightsholders, except the acquiror, will be entitled to acquire at the then exercise price of a right that number of shares of Autobytel’s common stock which, at the time, has a market value of two times the exercise price of the right. In addition, under certain circumstances, all rightholders, other than the acquiror, will be entitled to receive at the then exercise price of a right that number of shares of common stock of the acquiring company which, at the time, has a market value of two times the exercise price of the right. The initial exercise price of a right is $65. Such charter and rights provisions could limit the price that certain investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock and may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control. The issuance of preferred stock also could decrease the amount of earnings and assets available for distribution to the holders of common stock or could adversely affect the rights and powers, including voting rights, of the holders of the common stock.

We are also subject to the anti-takeover provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. In general, the statute prohibits a publicly held Delaware corporation from engaging in a “business combination” with an “interested stockholder” for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner. For purposes of Section 203, a “business combination” includes a merger, asset sale or other transaction resulting in a financial benefit to the interested stockholder, and an “interested stockholder” is a person who, together with affiliates and associates, owns or did own 15% or more of the corporation’s voting stock.

Our actual results could differ from forward-looking statements in this report.

This report contains forward-looking statements based on current expectations which involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of many factors, including the risk factors set forth above and elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. The cautionary statements made in this report should be read as being applicable to all forward-looking statements wherever they appear in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

As more fully described in Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, we restated our financial statements for the full 2002 fiscal year, the first, second, and third fiscal quarters of 2003, the full 2003 fiscal year, and the first and second fiscal quarters of 2004.

As described more fully in our Management’s Report On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting set forth in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, and this assessment identified internal control deficiencies

that individually or collectively are indicative of a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. Management currently is implementing certain remedial measures identified in Item 9A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, and intends to implement the remaining remedial measures during the course of 2005. While this implementation is underway, we are relying on extensive manual procedures and the utilization of outside accounting professionals to assist us with meeting the objectives otherwise fulfilled by an effective controls environment. While we are implementing changes to our controls environment, there remains a risk that the transitional procedures on which we are currently relying will fail to be sufficiently effective to address the internal control deficiencies identified in Management’s Report On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Please see Part I, Item 2. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis—Risk Factors—Our internal controls and procedures need to be improved.”

As of the end of the period covered by this report, we carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-15. In light of the internal control deficiencies referenced in the Management’s Report On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer believe that, as of the end of the period covered by this report, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective in alerting our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, to material information required to be included in our periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. However, our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, believe that the remedial measures described in Item 9A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, when implemented, will be designed to address the internal control deficiencies described in the Management’s Report On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and should allow us to conclude that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective at a reasonable level of assurance at future filing dates.

The following changes in our internal control over financial reporting occurred during the period covered by this report, and these changes materially affected, or were reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting: (1) we accepted the resignation of our Chief Executive Officer and President (from such positions) and appointed one of our board members as our new Chief Executive Officer and President; (2) we promoted our Executive Vice President, Corporate Development and Strategy, to Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; (3) we promoted our Senior Vice President, Finance, to Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; (4) we accepted the resignation of our Controller and principal accounting officer; and (5) the duties of our Controller and principal accounting officer have been assumed by our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, pending our appointment of a Controller.

In August 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Autobytel and certain of Autobytel’s current and former directors and officers (the “Autobytel Individual Defendants”) and underwriters involved in Autobytel’s initial public offering. The complaints against Autobytel have been consolidated with two other complaints that relate to its initial public offering but do not name it as a defendant, and a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. This action purports to allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in Autobytel’s initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for Autobytel’s initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. A motion to dismiss addressing issues common to the companies and individuals who have been sued in these actions was filed on July 15, 2002. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Autobytel Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the Autobytel Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against Autobytel. On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the Autobytel case. Autobytel has approved a settlement agreement and related agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between Autobytel, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants. Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of Autobytel and the Autobytel Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. Autobytel would agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims Autobytel may have against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers’ settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the difference. It is anticipated that any potential financial obligation of Autobytel to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and related agreements will be directly covered and paid by its insurance carriers. Autobytel currently is not aware of any material limitations on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to plaintiffs from its insurance carriers. Its carriers are solvent, and Autobytel is not aware of any uncertainties as to the legal sufficiency of an insurance claim with respect to any recovery by plaintiffs. Therefore, we do not expect that the settlement will involve any payment by Autobytel. If material limitations on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to the plaintiffs from Autobytel’s insurance carriers should arise, Autobytel’s maximum financial obligation to plaintiffs pursuant to the settlement agreement would be less than $3.4 million. On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion. The Court ruled that the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs were required to submit a revised settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims. The issuers and plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised settlement agreement consistent with the Court’s opinion. The revised settlement agreement has been approved by all of the issuer defendants that are not in bankruptcy. The underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the Court will grant final approval to the settlement. If the settlement agreement is not approved and Autobytel is found liable, we are unable to estimate or predict the potential damages that might be awarded, whether such damages would be greater than our insurance coverage, or whether such damages would have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows in any future period.

approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. A motion to dismiss addressing issues common to the companies and individuals who have been sued in these actions was filed on July 15, 2002. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Autoweb Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the Autoweb Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim without prejudice and with leave to replead but denied the motion to dismiss the claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against Autoweb. On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the Autoweb case. Autoweb has approved a settlement agreement and related agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between Autoweb, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants. Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of Autoweb and the Autoweb Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. Autoweb would agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims Autoweb may have against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers’ settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the difference. It is anticipated that any potential financial obligation of Autoweb to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and related agreements will be directly covered and paid by its insurance carriers. Autoweb currently is not aware of any material limitations on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to plaintiffs from its insurance carriers. Its carriers are solvent, and Autoweb is not aware of any uncertainties as to the legal sufficiency of an insurance claim with respect to any recovery by plaintiffs. Therefore, we do not expect that the settlement will involve any payment by Autoweb. If material limitations on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to the plaintiffs from Autoweb’s insurance carriers should arise, Autoweb’s maximum financial obligation to plaintiffs pursuant to the settlement agreement would be less than $3.4 million. On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion. The Court ruled that the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs were required to submit a revised settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims. The issuers and plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised settlement agreement consistent with the Court’s opinion. The revised settlement agreement has been approved by all of the issuer defendants that are not in bankruptcy. The underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the Court will grant final approval to the settlement. If the settlement agreement is not approved and Autoweb is found liable, we are unable to estimate or predict the potential damages that might be awarded, whether such damages would be greater than Autoweb’s insurance coverage, or whether such damages would have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows in any future period.

On September 24, 2004, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Dealix Corporation. In that lawsuit, we assert infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,282,517, entitled “Real Time Communication of Purchase Requests,” against Dealix Corporation. We contend that Dealix Corporation is infringing our patent by virtue of Dealix Corporation’s software system for the distribution of purchase requests and seek damages and/or a preliminary injunction. Dealix Corporation filed answers to this lawsuit on January 28, 2005, February 1, 2005 and July 19, 2005, in which it asserts typical defensive counterclaims denying infringement, asserting patent misuse and challenging the validity of the patent. We filed a reply responding to such counterclaims on August 2, 2005. A Markman Hearing, to construe the individual terms of the asserted patent’s claims prior to a determination of infringement, is scheduled for October, 2005. Dealix Corporation also seeks attorney’s fees and costs. We expect to incur attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter as are customary in the prosecution of patent litigation, and could be liable for Dealix Corporation’s attorneys’ fees and costs if Dealix Corporation is successful in its counterclaims.

Between October and December 2004, five separate purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against us and certain of our current directors and current and former officers. The claims were brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares during the period July 24, 2003 through October 21, 2004. The claims alleged in all of these purported class actions are virtually identical, and purport to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In this regard, the plaintiffs allege that we misrepresented and omitted material facts with respect to our financial results and operations during the time period between July 24, 2003 and October 20, 2004. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as accountants’ and experts’ fees.

approved the selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel. On June 30, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed and served a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class period is July 24, 2003 to October 21, 2004. Defendants filed and served a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on August 1, 2005. The hearing is currently set for November 2005. Additional lawsuits asserting the same or similar claims may be filed as well. We intend to defend the claims vigorously. However, we cannot currently predict the impact or outcome of this litigation, which could be material, and the initiation, continuation and outcome of these lawsuits may have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

In addition, our directors and a former officer are defendants in a derivative suit pending in the Superior Court of Orange County, California, and we are named as a nominal defendant in this suit. This suit purports to allege that the defendants breached numerous duties to us, including breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of information, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, as well as violations of California Corporations Code 25402 (trading with material non-public information), and that these breaches and violations caused losses to us, including damages to our reputation and goodwill. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on allegations that the defendants disseminated false and misleading statements concerning our results of operations and that these results were inflated at all relevant times due to violations of generally accepted accounting principles and Securities and Exchange Commission rules. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, treble damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as accountants’ and experts’ fees. Plaintiffs filed and served an Amended Derivative Complaint on July 29, 2005. Pursuant to stipulated order, defendants’ response to this Amended Derivative Complaint is due in September 2005.We intend to defend this suit vigorously. However, we cannot currently predict the impact or outcome of this litigation, which could be material, and the continuation and outcome of this lawsuit, as well as the initiation of similar suits may have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

We have reviewed the above class and derivative actions and do not believe that it is probable that a loss contingency has occurred, therefore, no amounts have been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


AUTOBYTEL INC.

By:		/s/ MICHAEL F. SCHMIDT
		Michael F. Schmidt
		*Chief Financial Officer*
		(Duly Authorized Officer, Principal Financial Officer,
		and Principal Accounting Officer)


Delaware		33-0711569
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer identification number)

18872 MacArthur Boulevard, Irvine, California		92612
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)


		Page

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.	Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited):

	Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004	3

	Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Three Months and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004	4

	Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004	5

	Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements	7

ITEM 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	18

ITEM 4.	Controls and Procedures	43

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1.	Legal Proceedings	45

ITEM 6.	Exhibits	47

Signatures		48


	June 30, 2005			December 31, 2004
ASSETS
Current assets:
Domestic cash and cash equivalents	$	27,085		$	24,287
Restricted international cash and cash equivalents		8,631			9,053
Short-term investments		12,000			16,500
Accounts receivable, net of allowances for bad debts and customer credits of $1,147 and $1,037, respectively		19,238			17,920
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		3,072			2,344

Total current assets		70,026			70,104
Long-term investments		6,000			12,000
Property and equipment, net		3,594			3,389
Capitalized internal use software, net		90			225
Goodwill		70,697			70,697
Acquired intangible assets, net		3,211			4,187
Other assets		110			115

Total assets	$	153,728		$	160,717

LIABILITIES, MINORITY INTEREST AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	6,844		$	5,812
Accrued expenses		6,498			7,990
Current portion of deferred revenues		4,186			4,029
Accrued domestic restructuring		—			74
Other current liabilities		2,185			2,216

Total current liabilities		19,713			20,121
Long-term deferred revenues		1			8

Total liabilities		19,714			20,129
Minority interest		4,338			4,521
Commitments and contingencies (Note 6.)
Stockholders’ equity:
Preferred stock, $0.001 par value; 11,445,187 shares authorized; none outstanding		—			—
Common stock, $0.001 par value; 200,000,000 shares authorized; 41,911,163 and 41,905,848 shares issued and outstanding, respectively		42			42
Additional paid-in capital		282,303			282,287
Accumulated other comprehensive income		1,785			2,099
Accumulated deficit		(154,454	)		(148,361	)

Total stockholders’ equity		129,676			136,067

Total liabilities, minority interest and stockholders’ equity	$	153,728		$	160,717


	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2005			2004			2005			2004
Revenues	$	31,385		$	31,122		$	64,713		$	55,740
Costs and expenses:
Cost of revenues		12,682			12,891			26,069			23,416
Sales and marketing		7,008			6,998			15,090			13,083
Product and technology development		6,279			5,450			12,350			9,810
General and administrative		8,539			4,514			16,867			7,533
Amortization of acquired intangible assets		354			304			814			331

Total costs and expenses		34,862			30,157			71,190			54,173

Income (loss) from operations		(3,477	)		965			(6,477	)		1,567
Interest income		389			219			738			405
Loss in equity investee		—			—			—			(84	)
Foreign currency exchange gain		8			20			10			20
Other income		—			—			—			1
Minority interest		(76	)		(47	)		(93	)		(47	)

Income (loss) before income taxes		(3,156	)		1,157			(5,822	)		1,862
Provision for income taxes		(127	)		(171	)		(271	)		(200	)

Net income (loss)	$	(3,283	)	$	986		$	(6,093	)	$	1,662

Net income (loss) per share:
Basic	$	(0.08	)	$	0.02		$	(0.15	)	$	0.04

Diluted	$	(0.08	)	$	0.02		$	(0.15	)	$	0.04

Shares used in computing net income (loss) per share:
Basic		41,906,851			41,123,593			41,906,352			39,733,775

Diluted		41,906,851			44,708,634			41,906,352			43,656,782

Comprehensive income (loss):
Net income (loss)	$	(3,283	)	$	986		$	(6,093	)	$	1,662
Translation adjustment		249			(77	)		314			67

Comprehensive income (loss)	$	(3,034	)	$	909		$	(5,779	)	$	1,729


	Six Months Ended June 30,
	2005			2004
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income (loss)	$	(6,093	)	$	1,662
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Non-cash charges:
Depreciation and amortization		855			801
Amortization of capitalized internal use software		193			540
Amortization of acquired intangible assets		957			418
Impairment of acquired intangible assets		19			—
Provision for (recovery of) bad debt		342			(240	)
Provision for customer credits		1,482			584
Loss on disposal of property and equipment		2			20
Loss on equity investee		—			84
Minority interest		93			47
Changes in assets and liabilities, excluding the effect of acquisitions and consolidation of Autobytel.Europe:
Accounts receivable		(3,142	)		(1,243	)
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		(728	)		(423	)
Other assets		5			13
Accounts payable		1,032			1,637
Accrued expenses		(1,492	)		(1,362	)
Deferred revenues		150			(524	)
Accrued domestic restructuring		(74	)		(90	)
Accrued international licensee liabilities		—			(1,541	)
Other current liabilities		(31	)		307

Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities		(6,430	)		690

Cash flows from investing activities:
Acquisitions of businesses, net of cash acquired		—			(20,631	)
Sales and maturities of short-term and long-term investments		18,600			17,991
Purchases of short-term and long-term investments		(8,100	)		(39,500	)
Redemptions of long-term investments		—			9,000
Changes in restricted international cash and cash equivalents		(168	)		2,038
Capitalized internal use software costs		(58	)		—
Purchases of property and equipment		(1,068	)		(923	)
Proceeds from sale of property and equipment		6			—

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities		9,212			(32,025	)

Cash flows from financing activities:
Payments of capital lease obligations		—			(225	)
Net proceeds from sale of common stock		16			3,657

Net cash provided by financing activities		16			3,432

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents		2,798			(27,903	)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period		24,287			45,643

Cash and cash equivalents, end of period	$	27,085		$	17,740

Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid during the period for income taxes	$	534		$	69

Cash refunded during the period for interest	$	—		$	(1	)


	Amortized Cost Basis		Aggregate Fair Value		Unrealized Gains		Unrealized Losses
June 30, 2005:
Short-term investments, held-to-maturity:
Government sponsored agency bonds	$	12,000	$	11,885	$	—	$	115

Long-term investments, held-to-maturity:
Government sponsored agency bonds		6,000		5,961		—		39

Total as of June 30, 2005	$	18,000	$	17,846	$	—	$	154

December 31, 2004:

Short-term investments, available for sale:
Auction rate securities	$	10,500	$	10,500	$	—	$	—
Short-term investments, held-to-maturity:
Government sponsored agency bonds		6,000		5,976		—		24

		16,500		16,476		—		24
Long-term investments, held-to-maturity:
Government sponsored agency bonds		12,000		11,905		—		95

Total as of December 31, 2004	$	28,500	$	28,381	$	—	$	119


	Amortized Cost Basis
Due within one year	$	12,000
Due after one through five years		6,000

	$	18,000


	As of
	June 30, 2005			December 31, 2004
Restricted international cash and cash equivalents	$	8,631		$	9,053
Other current and non-current assets		93			75
Current liabilities		(218	)		(264	)
Minority interest		(4,338	)		(4,521	)

	$	4,168		$	4,343


	Three Months Ended June 30, 2004		Six Months Ended June 30, 2004
Revenue	$	32,541	$	65,129
Net income	$	1,844	$	2,921
Net income per share:
Basic	$	0.04	$	0.07
Diluted	$	0.04	$	0.06


	As of June 30, 2005
	Average Estimated Useful Lives	Gross Carrying Amount		Accumulated Amortization			Impairment Charge			Net Amount
Developed technology	2 years	$	820	$	(499	)	$	—		$	321
Customer relationships	3 years		4,375		(1,797	)		(219	)		2,359
Domain name	5 years		700		(169	)		—			531

Total		$	5,895	$	(2,465	)	$	(219	)	$	3,211


	As of December 31, 2004
	Average Estimated Useful Lives	Gross Carrying Amount		Accumulated Amortization			Impairment Charge			Net Amount
Developed technology	2 years	$	820	$	(289	)	$	—		$	531
Customer relationships	3 years		4,375		(1,120	)		(200	)		3,055
Domain name	5 years		700		(99	)		—			601

Total		$	5,895	$	(1,508	)	$	(200	)	$	4,187


	Amortization Expense
Six months ending December 31, 2005	$	950
2006	$	1,568
2007	$	512
2008	$	140
2009	$	41


	Three Months Ended June 30,				Six Months Ended June 30,
	2005		2004		2005		2004
Lead fees	$	19,699	$	21,772	$	41,324	$	38,964
Advertising		4,497		3,165		9,258		6,267
CRM services		6,040		4,951		11,798		7,960
Data, applications and other		1,149		1,234		2,333		2,549

Total revenues	$	31,385	$	31,122	$	64,713	$	55,740


10.1		Employment Agreement, dated April 27, 2005, between Autobytel Inc. and Richard Post is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2005.

10.2		Employment Agreement, dated April 27, 2005, between Autobytel Inc. and Jeffrey Schwartz is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2005.

10.3		Employment Agreement, dated April 27, 2005, between Autobytel Inc. and Richard Walker is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2005.

10.4		Employment Agreement, dated May 30, 2005, between Autobytel Inc. and Michael Schmidt is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2005.

10.5		Letter Agreement, dated June 15, 2005, between Autobytel Inc. and Andrew Donchak is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 16, 2005.

31.1		Chief Executive Officer Section 302 Certification of Periodic Report, dated August 8, 2005.

31.2		Chief Financial Officer Section 302 Certification of Periodic Report, dated August 8, 2005.

32.1		Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Section 906 Certification of Periodic Report, dated August 8, 2005.