Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Reorganization

In May 2020, the Company committed to a restructuring plan (the “Restructuring Plan”) in furtherance of its efforts to enhance productivity and efficiency, preserve profitability and streamline its organizational structure to better align operations with its long-term commitment to providing an enhanced consumer experience. The Company recorded restructuring costs of approximately $8.3 million in the second quarter of 2020 in connection with the Restructuring Plan. Of the total, the Company recorded $0.6 million in cost of revenue, $5.3 million in sales and marketing, $1.6 million in technology and development and $0.8 million in general and administrative expenses within the Company’s consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss) during the year ended December 31, 2020. Included in discontinued operations are restructuring costs of $0.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. The majority of the restructuring costs liability was paid during the year ended December 31, 2020 with the remaining accrual reversed in 2021 upon the expiration of the unexercised health benefits. The Company does not expect to incur significant additional charges in future periods related to the Restructuring Plan.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company may become subject to legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. When the Company becomes aware of a claim or potential claim, it assesses the likelihood of any loss or exposure. In accordance with authoritative guidance, the Company records loss contingencies in its financial statements only for matters in which losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Where a range of loss can be reasonably estimated with no best estimate in the range, the Company records the minimum estimated liability. If the loss is not probable or the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, the Company discloses the nature of the specific claim if the likelihood of a potential loss is reasonably possible and the amount involved is material. The Company continuously assesses the potential liability related to the Company’s pending litigation and revises its estimates when additional information becomes available. The Company is not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, other than as described below.

Stockholder Litigation

Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation

On March 30, 2018, Leon Milbeck filed a putative securities class action against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation”). On June 27, 2018, the court appointed the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, who filed an amended complaint on August 24, 2018. The amended complaint sought an award of unspecified damages, interest, attorney’s fees and equitable relief based on allegations that the defendants made false or misleading statements about the Company’s business, operations, prospects and performance during a purported class period of February 16, 2017 through November 6, 2017 in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that the defendants made actionable misstatements in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act in connection with our secondary offering that occurred during the class period. The amended complaint named the Company, certain of its then-current and former officers and directors and the underwriters for its secondary offering as defendants. On October 31, 2018, the plaintiff dismissed the underwriters from the litigation “without prejudice,” meaning that they could be reinstated as defendants at a later time, and on November 5, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court denied on February 5, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the court granted the lead plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On August 2, 2019, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation on a class-wide basis for $28.25 million, all of which was paid by the Company’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance. On October 15, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, and on January 27, 2020, the court issued a minute order granting final approval to the settlement. The court entered the final judgment and order of dismissal on May 26, 2020. As a result, the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation is resolved.

Delaware Consolidated Derivative Litigation

In August 2019, three purported stockholder derivative actions were filed in Delaware alleging a variety of claims nominally on the Company’s behalf arising out of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under Delaware law based upon substantially the same factual allegations as the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation. The complaints named the Company, certain of its then-current and former directors and officers, USAA and, in one of the actions, certain entities affiliated with USAA and certain of our current and former directors as defendants. On October 7, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the cases into a single action in that court bearing the caption In re TrueCar, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation (the “Delaware Consolidated Derivative Litigation”). On November 6, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against all of the defendants named in the prior actions, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, contribution and indemnification against the Company’s current and former officers and directors, and claims for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against the entities affiliated with USAA and with certain of the Company’s current and former directors. The plaintiffs sought an award of damages against the defendants on behalf of the Company and various alleged corporate governance reforms. On December 19, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to make a pre-suit demand. On September 30, 2020, the court dismissed the Delaware Consolidated Derivative Litigation with prejudice for failure to make a pre-suit demand and failure to state a claim and the plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling. As a result, the Delaware Consolidated Derivative Litigation is resolved. Following the court’s decision, the plaintiffs sent a letter to the Company demanding that it pursue claims against certain current and former officers for various alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties, based substantially on the same factual allegations as the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation. On November 18, 2020, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) established a special committee of the Board (the “Special Committee”) to investigate the claims contained in the Delaware Consolidated Derivative Litigation, the Lee Derivative Litigation and other related stockholder demands. In October 2021, following the aforementioned investigation, the Board adopted the Special Committee’s recommendation that the Board refuse the demands in their entirety and conclude that no further action is necessary.

Lee Derivative Litigation

In December 2019, Sulgi Lee, a purported stockholder, filed a derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging a variety of claims nominally on the Company’s behalf arising out of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under Delaware law based upon substantially the same factual allegations as the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation. The complaint named the Company, certain of its then-current and former directors and officers and USAA as defendants. The plaintiff seeks an award of damages against the defendants on the Company’s behalf and various alleged corporate governance reforms. On May 5, 2020, the court entered the parties’ stipulation to stay this litigation pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss in the Delaware Consolidated Derivative Litigation. Following the dismissal of the Delaware Consolidated Derivative Litigation, on December 22, 2020, the court entered the parties’ further stipulation to stay the Lee Derivative Litigation pending the outcome of the Special Committee’s investigation. Following the Board’s action on the Special Committee’s recommendation, which is described in greater details above, the plaintiff dismissed her claims on June 22, 2022. As a result, the Lee Derivative Litigation is resolved, and the Company does not anticipate a loss related to this matter.

Trademark Litigation

On April 9, 2020, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Six Star, Inc. (“Six Star”) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the “Trademark Litigation”). The complaint in the Trademark Litigation alleges that the Company’s new “BUY SMARTER DRIVE HAPPIER” tagline infringed and diluted Six Star’s “BUY SMART BE HAPPY” trademark and included claims of false advertising and deceptive and unfair trade practices. The complaint seeks injunctive relief in addition to certain monetary awards. On June 25, 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the parties agreed to dismiss the Trademark Litigation in exchange for the Company agreeing not to use Six Star’s “BUY SMART BE HAPPY” trademark and to only use its own trademark in conjunction with the word “TrueCar.” The settlement agreement did not provide for either party to pay the other any amounts. On June 28, 2021, the court dismissed the Trademark Litigation pursuant to the settlement agreement. As a result, the Trademark Litigation is currently resolved.

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 of 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 intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. While the Company’s future obligations under certain of these agreements may contain limitations on liability for indemnification, other agreements do not contain such limitations and under such agreements it is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments due to the conditional nature of the Company’s obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under such indemnities have not had a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Additionally, the Company does not believe that any amounts that it may be required to pay under these indemnities in the future will be material to the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.  

Purchase Obligations

At December 31, 2022, the Company had the following purchase obligations (in thousands):  

	Total		Less Than 1 Year		1 - 3 Years		3 - 5 Years		More Than 5 Years
Purchase obligations	$	22,254	$	9,995	$	12,241	$	18	$	—

Purchase obligations include long-term agreements to purchase data information, software-related licenses, and support services, and other obligations that are enforceable and legally binding as of December 31, 2022. Purchase obligations exclude agreements that are cancellable without penalty.