Note 3 - Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	NOTE 3 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Settlement and Legal On August 27, 2021, a putative securities class action complaint captioned Baron v. Hyrecar Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-06918, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company; its Chief Executive Officer, Joseph Furnari; and its former Chief Financial Officer, Robert Scott Brogi. This action asserts claims and seeks damages for alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged class period is May 14, 2021 to August 10, 2021, inclusive. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, on November 19, 2021, the Court appointed Turton Inc. to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”). The First Amended Complaint alleged that defendants made material misrepresentations or failed to disclose material facts that, among other things, the Company had materially understated its expenses and insurance reserves in coordination with a third-party adjuster which Lead Plaintiff alleged was conflicted. On December 27, 2021, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, arguing that Lead Plaintiff failed to adequately plead that any of the Company’s public statements were materially false or misleading, or that defendants acted with scienter– meaning defendants either knew those statements were false or were deliberately reckless to their truth or falsity at the time they were made. On February 16, 2022, the Court (Hon. Percy Anderson) granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that Lead Plaintiff failed to adequately plead any of defendants’ statements were materially false or misleading. Because the Court ruled that Lead Plaintiff did not sufficiently plead falsity, the Court did not address the additional arguments regarding scienter at the time. The Court permitted Lead Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint on March 21, 2022. The Second Amended Complaint asserts the same violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, again alleging, among other things, HyreCar made materially false or misleading statements related to its first quarter 2021 reserves, and by extension misstated expenses and revenues. On April 4, 2022, the Company and individual defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on the basis that Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts that would cure the deficiencies identified in the Court’s order on the first motion to dismiss—i.e., that Plaintiff again failed to plead that any statements were materially false or misleading when made—and Plaintiff failed to plead that defendants acted with scienter. On April 21, 2022, the case was transferred to a new judge, and on April 27, 2022, the Court issued a Reassignment Order that, among other things, vacated all hearing dates. The Court has now set the hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for October 20, 2022 and also set a scheduling conference, if necessary, for December 8, 2022. The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company’s chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Other In November 2021, the Company entered into a lease in Los Angeles, California commencing January 1, 2022, with the ability to occupy the facility in January 2022. The lease term is 48 months from the commencement date. The lease required a deposit of $25,563. Per the lease agreement, the monthly rate will range from $23,394 to $25,563 a month prior to discounts and abatements that may apply. The Company also rents office furniture and incurs ancillary fees for building services and shared expenses. In accordance with ASC 842 mentioned above, the Company recorded a Right to Use asset account and Lease Liability account for $997,109 as of January 1, 2022 (the present value of the lease payments) and those accounts will be amortized over the 48 month period of the lease agreement. Rent expense for the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021 was $137,450 and $121,789, respectively. We connect drivers and vehicle owners in many tax jurisdictions throughout the United States. After the Supreme Court of the United States decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. (Wayfair) in June 2018, states commenced enacting laws that would require certain online sellers to collect sales and use tax despite not having a physical presence in the buyer’s state. In response to Wayfair, or otherwise, states or local governments may adopt, or begin to enforce, laws requiring us to calculate, collect, and remit taxes on sales in their jurisdictions. A successful assertion by one or more states requiring us to collect taxes could result in tax liabilities, including taxes on past sales, as well as penalties and interest. Based on our analysis of certain state regulations on peer-to-peer activities, we do not believe risk of loss is probable on historical revenue activities. We continuously monitor state regulations as it relates to peer-to-peer vehicle rental activities and will implement required collection and remittance procedures if and when we believe we would become subject to such regulations.

Note 3 - Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 3 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Settlement and Legal

On August 27, 2021, a putative securities class action complaint captioned Baron v. Hyrecar Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-06918, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company; its Chief Executive Officer, Joseph Furnari; and its former Chief Financial Officer, Robert Scott Brogi. This action asserts claims and seeks damages for alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged class period is May 14, 2021 to August 10, 2021, inclusive. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, on November 19, 2021, the Court appointed Turton Inc. to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”). The First Amended Complaint alleged that defendants made material misrepresentations or failed to disclose material facts that, among other things, the Company had materially understated its expenses and insurance reserves in coordination with a third-party adjuster which Lead Plaintiff alleged was conflicted. On December 27, 2021, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, arguing that Lead Plaintiff failed to adequately plead that any of the Company’s public statements were materially false or misleading, or that defendants acted with scienter– meaning defendants either knew those statements were false or were deliberately reckless to their truth or falsity at the time they were made. On February 16, 2022, the Court (Hon. Percy Anderson) granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that Lead Plaintiff failed to adequately plead any of defendants’ statements were materially false or misleading. Because the Court ruled that Lead Plaintiff did not sufficiently plead falsity, the Court did not address the additional arguments regarding scienter at the time. The Court permitted Lead Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint on March 21, 2022. The Second Amended Complaint asserts the same violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, again alleging, among other things, HyreCar made materially false or misleading statements related to its first quarter 2021 reserves, and by extension misstated expenses and revenues. On April 4, 2022, the Company and individual defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on the basis that Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts that would cure the deficiencies identified in the Court’s order on the first motion to dismiss—i.e., that Plaintiff again failed to plead that any statements were materially false or misleading when made—and Plaintiff failed to plead that defendants acted with scienter. On April 21, 2022, the case was transferred to a new judge, and on April 27, 2022, the Court issued a Reassignment Order that, among other things, vacated all hearing dates. The Court has now set the hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for October 20, 2022 and also set a scheduling conference, if necessary, for December 8, 2022. The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company’s chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

Other

In November 2021, the Company entered into a lease in Los Angeles, California commencing January 1, 2022, with the ability to occupy the facility in January 2022. The lease term is 48 months from the commencement date. The lease required a deposit of $25,563. Per the lease agreement, the monthly rate will range from $23,394 to $25,563 a month prior to discounts and abatements that may apply. The Company also rents office furniture and incurs ancillary fees for building services and shared expenses. In accordance with ASC 842 mentioned above, the Company recorded a Right to Use asset account and Lease Liability account for $997,109 as of January 1, 2022 (the present value of the lease payments) and those accounts will be amortized over the 48 month period of the lease agreement. Rent expense for the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021 was $137,450 and $121,789, respectively.

We connect drivers and vehicle owners in many tax jurisdictions throughout the United States. After the Supreme Court of the United States decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. (Wayfair) in June 2018, states commenced enacting laws that would require certain online sellers to collect sales and use tax despite not having a physical presence in the buyer’s state. In response to Wayfair, or otherwise, states or local governments may adopt, or begin to enforce, laws requiring us to calculate, collect, and remit taxes on sales in their jurisdictions. A successful assertion by one or more states requiring us to collect taxes could result in tax liabilities, including taxes on past sales, as well as penalties and interest. Based on our analysis of certain state regulations on peer-to-peer activities, we do not believe risk of loss is probable on historical revenue activities. We continuously monitor state regulations as it relates to peer-to-peer vehicle rental activities and will implement required collection and remittance procedures if and when we believe we would become subject to such regulations.