Note 13 - Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Notes to Financial Statements
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	*Note 13.* Legal Proceedings KDHM, LLC** On September 1, 2021, KDHM, LLC sued PDS Acquisition Corp, now known as Usio Output Solutions, Inc., in the District Court of Bexar County, Texas claiming a breach of the asset purchase agreement executed by the parties on December 14, 2020. The lawsuit alleges that due to a mistake, accident, or inadvertence, certain customer deposits in the amount of $317,000 were improperly transferred to us. We believe that plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit have no merit and contradict the express terms of the asset purchase agreement. As a result of this post sale dispute, we discovered that KDHM, LLC, and its principals, made certain misrepresentations and breached the terms of the asset purchase agreement. On September 28, 2021, we filed an answer generally denying plaintiff’s allegations. On October 5, 2021, we filed a counterclaim and third-party petition. Therein, we allege that neither KDHM nor its principals disclosed that KDHM was not accounting for the customer deposits in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Yet, KDHM, and third-party defendants its principals Henry Minten and Thomas Dowe, affirmatively represented and warranted in section 3.1(e) of the agreement that “[t]Annual Financial Statements and the Interim Financial Statements have been prepared from the books and records of Seller in accordance with GAAP applied on a consistent basis.” We also discovered that KDHM by and through its principals failed to disclose that $305,000 in additional customer deposits existed and these deposits were not conveyed to us as required by the agreement. KDHM, Minten and Dowe provided us with fraudulent and misleading profit and loss statements that did not disclose these additional customer deposits. KDHM and the defendants do not dispute that these additional customer deposits exist and that they were purchased by Usio. However, despite a written representation that these funds would be returned, KDHM and its principal have held these funds hostage. Section 2.1(b)(x) of the agreement provides that the purchased assets includes “All of Seller’s deposits from its customer, including without limitation, those customer deposits listed on Schedule 2.1(b)(xi) of the Disclosure Schedules.” Finally, we discovered that KDHM did not provide us with all customer lists, which are identified as purchased asset under the agreement. We demanded the missing customer lists, but they have yet to be provided to us per the agreement. In our counterclaims and third-party petition, we assert causes of action for fraud, breach of contract and conversion. At this time, the parties are engaging in written discovery and working on scheduling the depositions of the parties. We consider the risk of loss as remote related to this lawsuit. Aside from these proceedings above, the Company may be involved in legal matters arising in the ordinary course of business from time to time. While we believe that such matters are currently not material, there can be no assurance that matters arising in the ordinary course of business for which we are or could become involved in litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Note 13 - Legal Proceedings

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

Note 13. Legal Proceedings

KDHM, LLC

On September 1, 2021, KDHM, LLC sued PDS Acquisition Corp, now known as Usio Output Solutions, Inc., in the District Court of Bexar County, Texas claiming a breach of the asset purchase agreement executed by the parties on December 14, 2020. The lawsuit alleges that due to a mistake, accident, or inadvertence, certain customer deposits in the amount of $317,000 were improperly transferred to us.

We believe that plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit have no merit and contradict the express terms of the asset purchase agreement. As a result of this post sale dispute, we discovered that KDHM, LLC, and its principals, made certain misrepresentations and breached the terms of the asset purchase agreement.

On September 28, 2021, we filed an answer generally denying plaintiff’s allegations. On October 5, 2021, we filed a counterclaim and third-party petition. Therein, we allege that neither KDHM nor its principals disclosed that KDHM was not accounting for the customer deposits in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Yet, KDHM, and third-party defendants its principals Henry Minten and Thomas Dowe, affirmatively represented and warranted in section 3.1(e) of the agreement that “[t]Annual Financial Statements and the Interim Financial Statements have been prepared from the books and records of Seller in accordance with GAAP applied on a consistent basis.”

We also discovered that KDHM by and through its principals failed to disclose that $305,000 in additional customer deposits existed and these deposits were not conveyed to us as required by the agreement. KDHM, Minten and Dowe provided us with fraudulent and misleading profit and loss statements that did not disclose these additional customer deposits. KDHM and the defendants do not dispute that these additional customer deposits exist and that they were purchased by Usio. However, despite a written representation that these funds would be returned, KDHM and its principal have held these funds hostage. Section 2.1(b)(x) of the agreement provides that the purchased assets includes “All of Seller’s deposits from its customer, including without limitation, those customer deposits listed on Schedule 2.1(b)(xi) of the Disclosure Schedules.” Finally, we discovered that KDHM did not provide us with all customer lists, which are identified as purchased asset under the agreement. We demanded the missing customer lists, but they have yet to be provided to us per the agreement.

In our counterclaims and third-party petition, we assert causes of action for fraud, breach of contract and conversion. At this time, the parties are engaging in written discovery and working on scheduling the depositions of the parties.

We consider the risk of loss as remote related to this lawsuit.

Aside from these proceedings above, the Company may be involved in legal matters arising in the ordinary course of business from time to time. While we believe that such matters are currently not material, there can be no assurance that matters arising in the ordinary course of business for which we are or could become involved in litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.