Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Office Lease Commitments At June 30, 2015, the Company had various non-cancellable leases related to the Company’s office facilities which expire through 2030. The Company recorded rent expense of $1.1 million and $0.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, total rent expense was $2.1 million and $1.3 million, respectively. San Francisco Office Lease In May 2014, the Company entered into a new facility lease in San Francisco (the “San Francisco Office”) with total future minimum lease commitments over 10 years, beginning August 1, 2014 of $7.0 million. In connection with this lease, the Company was required to obtain an irrevocable standby letter of credit in the amount of $0.8 million for the benefit of the landlord. Beginning August 1, 2017 through August 1, 2020, the letter of credit is subject to an annual reduction to as little as $0.2 million. The Company concluded that it was deemed the owner (for accounting purposes only) of the San Francisco Office during the construction period under build-to-suit lease accounting. As the Company assumed control of the construction project in the third quarter of 2014, the Company recorded the fair value of the leased property in “Property and equipment, net” and a corresponding liability in “Lease financing obligations” on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The Company recognized increases in the asset as additional building costs were incurred during the construction period. Additionally, imputed interest during the construction period was capitalized. At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company has capitalized $7.1 million and $6.6 million, respectively, in “Property and equipment, net” and a corresponding current and non-current lease financing obligation of $6.4 million and $6.6 million, respectively. Upon completion of the construction during the first quarter of 2015, the Company had retained the fair value of the lease property and the obligation on its balance sheet as it did not qualify for sales and leaseback accounting due to requirements to maintain collateral in the lease. The Company records the rent payments as a reduction of the lease financing obligation and imputed interest expense; ground rent will be recorded as an operating expense. The fair value of the lease property is being depreciated over the building’s estimated useful life of forty years. At the conclusion of the lease term, the Company will de-recognize both the then carrying values of the asset and financing obligation. Santa Monica Office Lease In July 2014, the Company entered into a new facility lease in Santa Monica (the “Santa Monica Office”) with total future minimum lease commitments over fifteen years, beginning in January 2015, of $36.0 million. In connection with this lease, the Company obtained an irrevocable standby letter of credit in the amount of $3.5 million for the benefit of the landlord. Beginning October 1, 2019 through October 1, 2025, the letter of credit is subject to an annual reduction to as little as $1.2 million. The Company has concluded that it is deemed the owner (for accounting purposes only) of the Santa Monica Office during the construction period under build-to-suit lease accounting. As the Company assumed control of the construction project in the first quarter of 2015, the Company recorded the fair value of the leased property in “Property and equipment, net” and a corresponding liability in “Lease financing obligations” on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The Company recognizes increases in the asset as additional building costs are incurred during the construction period. Additionally, imputed interest is capitalized during the construction period. At June 30, 2015, the Company has capitalized $22.6 million in “Property and equipment, net” and a corresponding current and non-current lease financing obligation of $22.0 million. Upon completion of the construction, which is estimated to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company will retain the fair value of the Santa Monica Office lease property and the obligation on its balance sheet as it does not qualify for sales leaseback accounting due to requirements to maintain collateral in the lease. The Company will record the rent payments as a reduction of the lease financing obligation and imputed interest expense; ground rent will be recorded as an operating lease. The fair value of the lease property will be depreciated over the building’s estimated useful life of forty years. At the conclusion of the lease term, the Company will de-recognize both the then carrying values of the asset and financing obligation. Other Lease Amendments and New Lease In February 2015, the Company amended an office lease for approximately 17,000 square feet in Santa Monica, California, to extend the lease term from June 2016 to December 2025. Additionally, beginning in 2016, the Company will lease approximately 21,000 additional square feet in the building through December 2025. The Company has the option to extend the lease term for portions of the space, or the entire space, for an additional five year period. The cumulative base rent over the lease term is expected to be approximately $26.0 million. In connection with the original lease for this space, the Company was required to obtain an irrevocable standby letter of credit, in the amount of $0.5 million for the benefit of its landlord. The current letter of credit expires June 30, 2016. In February 2015, the Company entered into a new five year office lease for approximately 6,000 square feet in Los Angeles, California which commenced in April 2015. The Company has the option to extend the lease for two additional five year periods. The cumulative base rent over the initial lease term is $3.0 million. Also in February 2015, the Company amended an office lease for approximately 5,000 square feet in Santa Monica, California to extend the lease term from May 2016 to March 2020. Additionally, in March 2015 the Company leased approximately 7,000 additional square feet through March 2020. The cumulative base rent over the lease term is expected to be approximately $3.6 million. Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company may become subject to legal proceedings, claims, and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company is not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, other than as described below. The Company filed a complaint against Sonic Automotive and Sonic Divisional Operations (collectively “Sonic”) on August 9, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The litigation concerns Sonic’s commercial use of the “True Price” mark. The Company is seeking an injunction prohibiting Sonic from using the “True Price” mark, as well as monetary damages incurred by the Company due to Sonic’s unlawful infringement. On July 29, 2015, the Company and Sonic reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation and entered into a “Term Sheet” reflecting the material terms of settlement. On August 4, 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with Sonic. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Sonic will discontinue use of the “True Price” mark and will transfer all of its rights to that mark to the Company, and the lawsuit will be dismissed. On March 9, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York (the "NY Lanham Act Litigation"). The complaint in the NY Lanham Act Litigation, purportedly filed on behalf of numerous automotive dealers who are not participating on the TrueCar platform, alleges that the Company has violated the Lanham Act as well as various state laws prohibiting unfair competition and deceptive acts or practices related to the Company’s advertising and promotional activities. The complaint seeks injunctive relief in addition to over $250 million in damages as a result of the alleged diversion of customers from the plaintiffs’ dealerships to TrueCar Certified Dealers. On April 7, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, and on July 13, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense costs, remains uncertain; accordingly, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome, or reasonably estimate the probability of or the range of loss, if any, for this action. As a result, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If this matter is not resolved in the Company’s favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. On May 20, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by the California New Car Dealers Association in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (the "CNCDA Litigation"). The complaint in the CNCDA Litigation seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on allegations that the Company is operating in the State of California as an unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker. On July 20, 2015, the Company filed a "demurrer" to the complaint, which is a pleading that requests the court to dismiss the case. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense costs, remains uncertain; accordingly, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome or reasonably estimate the probability of or the range of loss, if any, for this action. As a result, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If this matter is not resolved in the Company’s favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. On May 27, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Securities Litigation”) by Satyabrata Mahapatra naming the Company and two other individuals not affiliated with the Company as defendants. On June 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata and Correction purporting to name Scott Painter and Michael Guthrie as individual defendants in lieu of the two individual defendants named in the complaint. The complaint in the Securities Litigation seeks an award of unspecified damages, interest and attorneys' fees based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the putative class period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) TrueCar’s business practices violated unfair competition and deceptive trade practice laws (i.e., the issues raised in the NY Lanham Act Litigation); (ii) TrueCar acts as a dealer and broker in car sales transactions without proper licensing, in violation of various states’ laws that govern car sales (i.e., the issues raised in the CNCDA Litigation); and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 16, 2014 to May 20, 2015. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense costs, remains uncertain; accordingly, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome or reasonably estimate the probability of or the range of loss, if any, for this action. As a result, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If this matter is not resolved in the Company’s favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. On July 30, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles by numerous automotive dealers who are participating on the TrueCar platform (the "Participating Dealer Litigation"). The complaint in the Participating Dealer Litigation seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on allegations that the Company is engaging in unfairly competitive practices and is operating as an unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker in contravention of various state laws. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense costs, remains uncertain; accordingly, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome or reasonably estimate the probability of or the range of loss, if any, for this action. As a result, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If this matter is not resolved in the Company’s favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Employment Contracts The Company has entered into employment contracts with certain executives of the Company. Employment under these contracts is at-will employment. However, under the provisions of the contracts, the Company would incur severance obligations up to twelve months of the executive’s annual base salary for certain events such as involuntary terminations. Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnities of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, investors, directors, officers, employees and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of the Company’s breach of such agreements, services to be provided by the Company, or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third-parties. These indemnifications may survive termination of the underlying agreement and the maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions may not be subject to maximum loss provisions. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is indeterminable. To date, there has not been a material claim paid by the Company, nor has the Company been sued in connection with these indemnification arrangements. At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company has not accrued a liability for these guarantees, because the likelihood of incurring a payment obligation, if any, in connection with these guarantees is not probable or reasonably estimable.

Commitments and Contingencies

Office Lease Commitments

At June 30, 2015, the Company had various non-cancellable leases related to the Company’s office facilities which expire through 2030.

The Company recorded rent expense of $1.1 million and $0.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, total rent expense was $2.1 million and $1.3 million, respectively.

San Francisco Office Lease

In May 2014, the Company entered into a new facility lease in San Francisco (the “San Francisco Office”) with total future minimum lease commitments over 10 years, beginning August 1, 2014 of $7.0 million. In connection with this lease, the Company was required to obtain an irrevocable standby letter of credit in the amount of $0.8 million for the benefit of the landlord. Beginning August 1, 2017 through August 1, 2020, the letter of credit is subject to an annual reduction to as little as $0.2 million.

The Company concluded that it was deemed the owner (for accounting purposes only) of the San Francisco Office during the construction period under build-to-suit lease accounting. As the Company assumed control of the construction project in the third quarter of 2014, the Company recorded the fair value of the leased property in “Property and equipment, net” and a corresponding liability in “Lease financing obligations” on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The Company recognized increases in the asset as additional building costs were incurred during the construction period. Additionally, imputed interest during the construction period was capitalized. At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company has capitalized $7.1 million and $6.6 million, respectively, in “Property and equipment, net” and a corresponding current and non-current lease financing obligation of $6.4 million and $6.6 million, respectively.

Upon completion of the construction during the first quarter of 2015, the Company had retained the fair value of the lease property and the obligation on its balance sheet as it did not qualify for sales and leaseback accounting due to requirements to maintain collateral in the lease. The Company records the rent payments as a reduction of the lease financing obligation and imputed interest expense; ground rent will be recorded as an operating expense. The fair value of the lease property is being depreciated over the building’s estimated useful life of forty years. At the conclusion of the lease term, the Company will de-recognize both the then carrying values of the asset and financing obligation.

Santa Monica Office Lease

In July 2014, the Company entered into a new facility lease in Santa Monica (the “Santa Monica Office”) with total future minimum lease commitments over fifteen years, beginning in January 2015, of $36.0 million. In connection with this lease, the Company obtained an irrevocable standby letter of credit in the amount of $3.5 million for the benefit of the landlord. Beginning October 1, 2019 through October 1, 2025, the letter of credit is subject to an annual reduction to as little as $1.2 million.

The Company has concluded that it is deemed the owner (for accounting purposes only) of the Santa Monica Office during the construction period under build-to-suit lease accounting. As the Company assumed control of the construction project in the first quarter of 2015, the Company recorded the fair value of the leased property in “Property and equipment, net” and a corresponding liability in “Lease financing obligations” on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The Company recognizes increases in the asset as additional building costs are incurred during the construction period. Additionally, imputed interest is capitalized during the construction period. At June 30, 2015, the Company has capitalized $22.6 million in “Property and equipment, net” and a corresponding current and non-current lease financing obligation of $22.0 million.

Upon completion of the construction, which is estimated to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company will retain the fair value of the Santa Monica Office lease property and the obligation on its balance sheet as it does not qualify for sales leaseback accounting due to requirements to maintain collateral in the lease. The Company will record the rent payments as a reduction of the lease financing obligation and imputed interest expense; ground rent will be recorded as an operating lease. The fair value of the lease property will be depreciated over the building’s estimated useful life of forty years. At the conclusion of the lease term, the Company will de-recognize both the then carrying values of the asset and financing obligation.

Other Lease Amendments and New Lease

In February 2015, the Company amended an office lease for approximately 17,000 square feet in Santa Monica, California, to extend the lease term from June 2016 to December 2025. Additionally, beginning in 2016, the Company will lease approximately 21,000 additional square feet in the building through December 2025. The Company has the option to extend the lease term for portions of the space, or the entire space, for an additional five year period. The cumulative base rent over the lease term is expected to be approximately $26.0 million. In connection with the original lease for this space, the Company was required to obtain an irrevocable standby letter of credit, in the amount of $0.5 million for the benefit of its landlord. The current letter of credit expires June 30, 2016.

In February 2015, the Company entered into a new five year office lease for approximately 6,000 square feet in Los Angeles, California which commenced in April 2015. The Company has the option to extend the lease for two additional five year periods. The cumulative base rent over the initial lease term is $3.0 million.

Also in February 2015, the Company amended an office lease for approximately 5,000 square feet in Santa Monica, California to extend the lease term from May 2016 to March 2020. Additionally, in March 2015 the Company leased approximately 7,000 additional square feet through March 2020. The cumulative base rent over the lease term is expected to be approximately $3.6 million.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company may become subject to legal proceedings, claims, and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company is not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, other than as described below.

The Company filed a complaint against Sonic Automotive and Sonic Divisional Operations (collectively “Sonic”) on August 9, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The litigation concerns Sonic’s commercial use of the “True Price” mark. The Company is seeking an injunction prohibiting Sonic from using the “True Price” mark, as well as monetary damages incurred by the Company due to Sonic’s unlawful infringement. On July 29, 2015, the Company and Sonic reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation and entered into a “Term Sheet” reflecting the material terms of settlement. On August 4, 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with Sonic. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Sonic will discontinue use of the “True Price” mark and will transfer all of its rights to that mark to the Company, and the lawsuit will be dismissed.

On March 9, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York (the "NY Lanham Act Litigation"). The complaint in the NY Lanham Act Litigation, purportedly filed on behalf of numerous automotive dealers who are not participating on the TrueCar platform, alleges that the Company has violated the Lanham Act as well as various state laws prohibiting unfair competition and deceptive acts or practices related to the Company’s advertising and promotional activities. The complaint seeks injunctive relief in addition to over $250 million in damages as a result of the alleged diversion of customers from the plaintiffs’ dealerships to TrueCar Certified Dealers. On April 7, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, and on July 13, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense costs, remains uncertain; accordingly, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome, or reasonably estimate the probability of or the range of loss, if any, for this action. As a result, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If this matter is not resolved in the Company’s favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

On May 20, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by the California New Car Dealers Association in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (the "CNCDA Litigation"). The complaint in the CNCDA Litigation seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on allegations that the Company is operating in the State of California as an unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker. On July 20, 2015, the Company filed a "demurrer" to the complaint, which is a pleading that requests the court to dismiss the case. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense costs, remains uncertain; accordingly, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome or reasonably estimate the probability of or the range of loss, if any, for this action. As a result, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If this matter is not resolved in the Company’s favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

On May 27, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Securities Litigation”) by Satyabrata Mahapatra naming the Company and two other individuals not affiliated with the Company as defendants. On June 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata and Correction purporting to name Scott Painter and Michael Guthrie as individual defendants in lieu of the two individual defendants named in the complaint. The complaint in the Securities Litigation seeks an award of unspecified damages, interest and attorneys' fees based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the putative class period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) TrueCar’s business practices violated unfair competition and deceptive trade practice laws (i.e., the issues raised in the NY Lanham Act Litigation); (ii) TrueCar acts as a dealer and broker in car sales transactions without proper licensing, in violation of various states’ laws that govern car sales (i.e., the issues raised in the CNCDA Litigation); and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 16, 2014 to May 20, 2015. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense costs, remains uncertain; accordingly, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome or reasonably estimate the probability of or the range of loss, if any, for this action. As a result, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If this matter is not resolved in the Company’s favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

On July 30, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles by numerous automotive dealers who are participating on the TrueCar platform (the "Participating Dealer Litigation"). The complaint in the Participating Dealer Litigation seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on allegations that the Company is engaging in unfairly competitive practices and is operating as an unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker in contravention of various state laws. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense costs, remains uncertain; accordingly, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome or reasonably estimate the probability of or the range of loss, if any, for this action. As a result, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If this matter is not resolved in the Company’s favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Employment Contracts

The Company has entered into employment contracts with certain executives of the Company. Employment under these contracts is at-will employment. However, under the provisions of the contracts, the Company would incur severance obligations up to twelve months of the executive’s annual base salary for certain events such as involuntary terminations.

Indemnifications

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnities of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, investors, directors, officers, employees and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of the Company’s breach of such agreements, services to be provided by the Company, or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third-parties. These indemnifications may survive termination of the underlying agreement and the maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions may not be subject to maximum loss provisions. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is indeterminable. To date, there has not been a material claim paid by the Company, nor has the Company been sued in connection with these indemnification arrangements. At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company has not accrued a liability for these guarantees, because the likelihood of incurring a payment obligation, if any, in connection with these guarantees is not probable or reasonably estimable.