Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Sep. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation From time to time, the Company is subject to various claims and contingencies which are in the scope of ordinary and routine litigation incidental to its business, including those related to regulation, business transactions, employee-related matters and taxes, among others. When the Company becomes aware of a claim or potential claim, the likelihood of any loss or exposure is assessed. If it is probable that a loss will result and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records a liability for the loss and discloses the possible loss in the consolidated financial statements. On September 23, 2020, the Center for Advanced Public Awareness (“CAPA”) served a 60-Day Notice of Violation on the Company, alleging that the Company violated California’s Health and Safety Code (“Prop 65”) because of the amount of lead in the Company’s Diaper Rash Cream and seeking statutory penalties and product warnings available under Prop 65. On October 22, 2021, CAPA filed a complaint in California Superior Court in the County of San Francisco (the “Court”) for the alleged Prop 65 violations contained in its 60-Day Notice of Violation. The Company filed its answer and notice of related cases against Prestige Consumer Healthcare, Inc., Burt's Bees, Inc., and Hain Celestial Group, Inc. on January 7, 2022 and has stipulated to relate these cases and transfer them to the Court's Complex Division. On April 30, 2024, the Company filed its motion for summary judgment. On January 23, 2025, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment. On April 8, 2025, CAPA served its Notice of Appeal in the matter. On August 4, 2025, the Court dismissed CAPA's appeal. Following the dismissal of CAPA's appeal, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable or estimable in this matter. On September 15, 2021, Cody Dixon filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging federal securities law violations by the Company, certain current officers and directors, and certain underwriters in connection with the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”) (“Securities Litigation Case”). A second putative class action complaint containing similar allegations against the Company and certain current officers and directors was filed by Stephen Gambino on October 8, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. These related complaints have been transferred to the same court and a Lead Plaintiff has been appointed in the matter, and a putative consolidated class action complaint was filed by the Lead Plaintiff on February 21, 2022, alleging claims and seeking relief under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the Company’s IPO. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the putative consolidated class action complaint was filed on March 14, 2022. On July 18, 2022, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. On May 1, 2023, the Lead Plaintiff’s motion for class certification in the consolidated class action was granted in part and denied in part, with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California limiting the certified class to only those persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s publicly traded common stock pursuant and traceable to the Company’s IPO offering documents prior to August 19, 2021, as well as all persons and entities that acquired ownership of a trading account, retirement account, or any other similar investment account or portfolio containing the Company’s publicly traded common stock that was purchased or otherwise acquired pursuant and traceable to the IPO offering documents prior to August 19, 2021, and were damaged thereby. On August 14, 2023, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action complaint naming as additional defendants Catterton Management Company L.L.C., L Catterton VIII, L.P., L. Catterton VIII Offshore, L.P., THC Shared Abacus, LP, Catterton Managing Partner VIII, L.L.C., and C8 Management, L.L.C. On October 16, 2023, those additional defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint with respect to the claims against them. On January 31, 2024, that motion to dismiss was granted by the court to the extent those additional defendants challenged the claims as untimely. The court granted Lead Plaintiff leave to amend within fourteen days of that order. On February 14, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated complaint against the additional defendants. The additional defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint, which was denied by the court on April 22, 2024. On January 21, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation stating that they had reached an agreement in principle to fully settle all pending claims in the action and asking the court to stay the case so the parties could have additional time to negotiate the terms of a formal stipulation of settlement and related documentation. The court entered an order staying the case on the same day. On April 14, 2025, the court preliminarily approved the parties’ settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, in exchange for the release and dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the defendants in the second amended consolidated complaint, we have agreed to pay $20,000,000 to resolve the dispute, to be fully funded by the Company’s insurance carriers. The proposed settlement does not constitute an admission of fault or wrongdoing by the Company, the named individual defendants, or the underwriters. The Company recorded the settlement amount of $20,000,000 within accrued expenses and a corresponding insurance recovery of $20,000,000 within prepaids and other current assets related to the legal settlement on the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2025. The determination that the recorded insurance recovery receivable is probable of collection is based on the terms of the applicable insurance policies, settlement agreement, and communications with the insurers. On July 28, 2025, the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class settlement. The settlement was fully funded by the insurance carriers into plaintiff’s escrow in May 2025 and on July 30, 2025, the court entered a final order approving the settlement and judgment disposing of the Securities Litigation Case. A derivative complaint was filed by Hayato Ono on behalf of the Company on November 29, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste, gross mismanagement, and federal securities law violations by the Company’s directors and certain officers. On December 17, 2021, a second derivative complaint containing similar allegations against the Company’s directors and certain officers was filed by Mike Wang in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. These two federal derivative cases have been transferred to the same judge who is presiding over the securities class action complaints. A third derivative complaint was filed by Leah Bisch and Raluca Corobana in California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles on January 3, 2022 with similar allegations. A fourth derivative complaint was filed by David Butler in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on October 19, 2022 with similar allegations. Each of these federal and state court derivative cases have been stayed. These matters are in the preliminary stages of litigation with uncertain outcomes at this time. Therefore, the Company cannot estimate the probability of loss or make an estimate of the loss or range of loss in these matters. As of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company was not subject to any other currently pending legal matters or claims that based on its current evaluation are expected to have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows should such matters be resolved unfavorably. Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to investors, directors and officers 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 number of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions may not be subject to maximum loss clauses. The maximum potential number of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is indeterminable. The Company has never been involved in litigation in connection with these indemnification arrangements. As of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company has not accrued a liability for these guarantees as the likelihood of incurring a payment obligation, if any, in connection with these guarantees is not probable or reasonably estimable due to the unique facts and circumstances involved.