Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Sep. 30, 2026
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 condensed consolidated financial statements. A complaint was filed by Hayato Ono derivatively on behalf of the Company on November 29, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (“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 (the “Ono Action”). 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 Central District of California and consolidated with the Ono Action (together, the “California Federal Derivative Action”). 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 (the “California State Derivative Action”), with similar allegations. A fourth derivative complaint was filed by David Butler in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District of Delaware Action”) on October 19, 2022, with similar allegations. Each of these federal and state court derivative cases have been stayed. On December 18, 2025, the parties to all derivative cases reached an agreement in principle to settle the matters. On March 26, 2026, a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed in the California Federal Derivative Action. A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval was held on April 29, 2026 and the final approval hearing was held on July 13, 2026. The settlement received final approval from the Central District of California on July 13, 2026. The Company recorded the settlement amount of $1.2 million within accrued expenses and a corresponding insurance recovery of $1.2 million within prepaids and other current assets related to the legal settlement on the consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2026, and December 31, 2025. The determination that the recorded insurance recovery receivable was probable of collection was based on the terms of the applicable insurance policies, settlement agreement, and communications with the insurers. Pursuant to the final approval of settlement in the California Federal Derivative Action, on July 17, 2026, the parties in the District of Delaware Action filed a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the action with prejudice, which the court granted on July 20, 2026. On July 28, 2026, the parties in the California State Derivative Action filed a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the action with prejudice. On July 30, 2026, the court granted the stipulation and entered a final order approving the settlement and judgment thereby resolving the California State Derivative Action. The settlement was fully funded by the insurance carriers into plaintiff’s escrow in July 2026. On November 5, 2025, the Company filed a complaint in the Central District of California alleging that Butterblu, LLC (“Butterblu”) breached the supplier services agreement, as amended, that the Company and Butterblu had entered into as of August 15, 2022 (the "Supplier Services Agreement") pursuant to which Butterblu provides certain design, manufacturing, sales and marketing services to the Company in connection with the Company's apparel products. The Company voluntarily dismissed the complaint on November 21, 2025 related to a temporary extension of the Supplier Services Agreement. Following the conclusion of the temporary extension of the Supplier Services Agreement in December 2025, the Company filed an updated complaint on January 2, 2026 (the "Federal Court Action"). The Company has requested monetary damages and declaratory relief as determined by the Central District of California. On February 11, 2026, Butterblu filed a complaint against the Company in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles alleging breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, intentional interference with contract, and intentional interference with prospective economic relations related to the parties' obligations under the Supplier Services Agreement. On May 8, 2026, Butterblu filed a motion to dismiss the Federal Court Action. On July 29, 2026, the Central District of California granted in part and denied in part Butterblu's motion to dismiss the Federal Court Action. On September 18, 2026, Butterblu filed a counterclaim in the Federal Court Action alleging breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, intentional interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, trade libel, conversion, unjust enrichment, and misappropriation of trade secrets related to the parties' obligations under the Supplier Services Agreement. On October 16, 2026, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Butterblu's counterclaim. These matters are in the preliminary stages of litigation with uncertain outcomes at this time. Therefore, the Company cannot estimate the probability of gain or loss, or make an estimate of the gain or loss or range of gain or loss in these matters. On October 29, 2026, Kenya Winston filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging breach of express warranty, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, in each case related to hypoallergenic claims on certain of the Company’s personal care products and seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, equitable relief, monetary damages, punitive damages and statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. This matter is in the preliminary stages of litigation with uncertain outcomes at this time. Therefore, the Company cannot estimate the probability of gain or loss, or make an estimate of the gain or loss or range of gain or loss in this matter. As of September 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, 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. Tariffs Following the February 2026 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated specific tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), the Company is evaluating its eligibility for refunds of previously paid import duties. Beginning in April 2026, the Company began filing refund claims with U.S. Customs and Border Protection related to eligible IEEPA tariff payments made. During the nine months ended September 30, 2026, the Company received IEEPA tariff refunds totaling $11.9 million, which were recognized as a $6.6 million reduction in cost of revenue and a $0.5 million increase in interest income on the condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income, and as a $0.6 million reduction in inventory on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. During the three months ended September 30, 2026, the Company paid $4.2 million in tariff refund obligations to a third-party manufacturer, resulting in a corresponding reduction in cash and the related liability. The Company does not anticipate any further tariff refund obligations to third-party manufacturers. Due to the inherent uncertainty surrounding the timing and recoverability of additional refunds, no receivable or corresponding offset to expense or asset was recognized for future refunds as of September 30, 2026. 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, 2026 and December 31, 2025, 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.