Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation risk— From time to time, the Company may become involved in various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. Management is of the opinion that the ultimate liability, if any, from these actions will not have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations. The Company is not currently aware of any indemnification or other claims, except as discussed below and has not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in the condensed consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022. Except as set forth below, the Company and its subsidiaries are not a party to, and their properties are not the subject of, any material pending legal proceedings. DCA Litigation On April 9, 2021, Daiwa Corporate Advisory LLC (formerly known as DCS Advisory LLC) (“DCA”), a financial advisory firm, served the Company with a summons and a complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, in a matter bearing the index number 652164/2021. The complaint relates to a March 22, 2018 letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) entered into by DCA and Legacy Katapult. Among other things, DCA alleges that the Letter Agreement confers upon DCA (i) a right to act as the “exclusive financial advisor” with respect to certain transactions defined in the Letter Agreement, (ii) a right to a “Placement Fee” and/or “mutually-agreed upon fees” in connection with such advisory roles, and (iii) a right to a $100 termination fee payable in certain circumstances by the Company in the event that the Company terminated the Letter Agreement. For its first cause of action, DCA alleges that the Company “breached the Letter Agreement by failing and/or refusing to extend to DCA the opportunity to exercise its right of first refusal in connection with” certain transactions and the PIPE Investment. DCA seeks “damages in an amount to be determined at trial” with respect to this first cause of action. For its second cause of action, DCA alleges that, assuming the Company properly terminated the Letter Agreement in April 2019 (which DCA disputes), the Company, Inc. “also breached the Letter Agreement by failing to pay DCA a termination fee when it terminated the Letter Agreement.” DCA seeks “damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than $100,” with respect to this second cause of action. With respect to both causes of action, DCA also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Letter Agreement, an award of pre- and- post -judgment interest, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. On May 24, 2021, the Company filed its answer to the complaint and also asserted counterclaims against DCA for breach of contract and for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In connection with its counterclaims, the Company is seeking damages in the amount of approximately $10,600, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company disputes the allegations in DCA’s complaint and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. On July 29, 2021, the court entered a Preliminary Conference Order, which was subsequently amended on September 13, 2021, October 25, 2021, and June 27, 2022. Pursuant to the October 25, 2021 scheduling order, fact discovery was completed on June 24, 2022. On August 8, 2022, DCA filed its Note of Issue, stating that its damages demand is $18,394, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 12, 2022, DCA filed a motion seeking summary judgment as to both of its claims, and on September 13, 2022, the Company filed a motion seeking summary judgment as to DCA’s first cause of action. The parties filed opposition briefs on October 7, 2022. This matter went to mediation in January 2023 and is still in process. Shareholder Litigation On August 27, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Katapult Holdings, Inc., two officers of FinServ, one of whom is a current Company director, and two officers of Legacy Katapult, both of whom are current Company officers. The lawsuit is captioned McIntosh v. Katapult Holdings, Inc., et al. On May 26, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff, who, on July 29, 2022, filed an amended complaint in the action. The amended complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of persons and entities that (a) beneficially owned and/or held FinServ common stock as of the close of business on May 11, 2021 and were eligible to vote at FinServ’s June 7, 2021 special meeting (the “FinServ Putative Class”); or (b) purchased or otherwise acquired Katapult securities between June 15, 2021 and August 9, 2021, inclusive (the “Katapult Putative Class”). The amended complaint alleges that certain defendants misled the FinServ Putative Class by failing to disclose that prime lenders could and would reach down the credit waterfall and take Katapult’s customers. The amended complaint further alleges that certain defendants misled the Katapult Putative Class by providing materially false and misleading financial guidance. The Company and the other defendants filed amended complaints on November 4, 2022. On January 9, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. In March 2023 the Plaintiffs filed opposition briefs and the Company replied in April 2023. The Company is currently waiting for response from the Court. The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims in this action. The Company has not recorded any loss or gain contingencies associated with these matters as it is not probable or reasonably estimable at March 31, 2023.