Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies Aside from the below, as of June 30, 2021, there were no material changes to the Company’s commitments and contingencies as disclosed in the consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020. Purchase Commitments The Company entered into a commercial agreement with a third-party during the quarter ended March 31, 2021, pursuant to which the Company committed to spend an aggregate of at least $3.0 million by the end of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2021 on certain advertising services. As of June 30, 2021, the remaining commitment was $1.2 million. Leases On May 27, 2021, the Company entered into a non-cancelable lease agreement with a third-party to lease additional office space that is adjacent to and expands its existing corporate headquarters in Santa Monica, California. The lease commences beginning in the year 2022 and expires in the year 2033 with minimum lease payments expected to total approximately $41.4 million over the term of the lease. Legal Contingencies On December 18, 2020, R. Brian Terenzini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:20-cv-11444). On January 8, 2021, Bryan Kearney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, also filed a class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-00175). The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as interest, fees and costs. The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and assert that the Company failed to disclose to investors that Amazon.com, Inc. was developing its own mobile and online prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service that would compete directly with the Company. According to the complaints, when Amazon announced its competitor service, the Company’s stock price fell, causing investor losses. Lead plaintiff applications were submitted February 16, 2021, and on April 8, 2021, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption In re GoodRx Holdings, Inc.(Case No. 2:20-cv-11444) and appointed Betty Kalmanson, Lawrence Kalmanson, Shawn Kalmanson, and Janice Kasbaum as Lead Plaintiffs. On June 7, 2021, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint containing substantially similar factual allegations as the prior complaints, but adding claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated case on August 6, 2021. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of the plaintiffs and members of the class and intends to defend itself vigorously. This litigation is at preliminary stages, and the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. Based upon information presently known to management, the Company has not accrued a loss for this matter as a loss is not probable and reasonably estimable. While it is possible a loss may have been incurred, the Company is unable to estimate a loss or range of loss in this matter. On April 29, 2021 and May 5, 2021, Neesha Patel and Wayne Geist, respectively, each filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-03671 and Case No. 2:21-cv-03829, respectively). The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and contribution under the Exchange Act. Neesha Patel asserts additional claims for unjust enrichment and corporate waste. These claims are based on allegations substantially similar to those in the class action lawsuit described above. Plaintiffs are requesting declaratory relief, money damages, restitution, and certain governance reforms. Plaintiffs did not make a pre-suit demand on the Company’s board. The Company intends to seek dismissal of these cases, or a stay pending the outcome of the class action lawsuit. Any liability for the claims alleged is not currently probable and a loss or range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable. The pending proceedings described above involve complex questions of fact and law and may require the expenditure of significant funds and the diversion of other resources to defend. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and material adverse outcomes are possible. In addition, during the normal course of business, the Company may become subject to, and is presently involved in, legal proceedings, claims and litigation. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Accruals for loss contingencies are recorded when a loss is probable, and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company does not believe that the disposition of matters that are pending or asserted will have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements. Indemnification The Company’s amended and restated bylaws provides that it will indemnify the Company’s directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law. Certain of the Company’s officers and directors are also a party to indemnification agreements with the Company. Pursuant to the Company’s indemnification agreements and directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, certain of the Company’s officers and directors will be indemnified and insured against the cost of defense, settlement or payment of a judgment under certain circumstances. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is indeterminable. The Company has never paid a material claim, nor has the Company been involved in litigation, with respect to these indemnification arrangements. As of June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, 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.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

8. Commitments and Contingencies

Aside from the below, as of June 30, 2021, there were no material changes to the Company’s commitments and contingencies as disclosed in the consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020.

Purchase Commitments

The Company entered into a commercial agreement with a third-party during the quarter ended March 31, 2021, pursuant to which the Company committed to spend an aggregate of at least $3.0 million by the end of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2021 on certain advertising services. As of June 30, 2021, the remaining commitment was $1.2 million.

Leases

On May 27, 2021, the Company entered into a non-cancelable lease agreement with a third-party to lease additional office space that is adjacent to and expands its existing corporate headquarters in Santa Monica, California. The lease commences beginning in the year 2022 and expires in the year 2033 with minimum lease payments expected to total approximately $41.4 million over the term of the lease.

Legal Contingencies

On December 18, 2020, R. Brian Terenzini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:20-cv-11444). On January 8, 2021, Bryan Kearney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, also filed a class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-00175). The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as interest, fees and costs. The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and assert that the Company failed to disclose to investors that Amazon.com, Inc. was developing its own mobile and online prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service that would compete directly with the Company. According to the complaints, when Amazon announced its competitor service, the Company’s stock price fell, causing investor losses. Lead plaintiff applications were submitted February 16, 2021, and on April 8, 2021, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption In re GoodRx Holdings, Inc.(Case No. 2:20-cv-11444) and appointed Betty Kalmanson, Lawrence Kalmanson, Shawn Kalmanson, and Janice Kasbaum as Lead Plaintiffs. On June 7, 2021, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint containing substantially similar factual allegations as the prior complaints, but adding claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated case on August 6, 2021. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of the plaintiffs and members of the class and intends to defend itself vigorously. This litigation is at preliminary stages, and the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. Based upon information presently known to management, the Company has not accrued a loss for this matter as a loss is not probable and reasonably estimable. While it is possible a loss may have been incurred, the Company is unable to estimate a loss or range of loss in this matter.

On April 29, 2021 and May 5, 2021, Neesha Patel and Wayne Geist, respectively, each filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-03671 and Case No. 2:21-cv-03829, respectively). The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and contribution under the Exchange Act. Neesha Patel asserts additional claims for

unjust enrichment and corporate waste. These claims are based on allegations substantially similar to those in the class action lawsuit described above. Plaintiffs are requesting declaratory relief, money damages, restitution, and certain governance reforms. Plaintiffs did not make a pre-suit demand on the Company’s board. The Company intends to seek dismissal of these cases, or a stay pending the outcome of the class action lawsuit. Any liability for the claims alleged is not currently probable and a loss or range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable.

The pending proceedings described above involve complex questions of fact and law and may require the expenditure of significant funds and the diversion of other resources to defend. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and material adverse outcomes are possible.

In addition, during the normal course of business, the Company may become subject to, and is presently involved in, legal proceedings, claims and litigation. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Accruals for loss contingencies are recorded when a loss is probable, and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated.

The Company does not believe that the disposition of matters that are pending or asserted will have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements.

Indemnification

The Company’s amended and restated bylaws provides that it will indemnify the Company’s directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law. Certain of the Company’s officers and directors are also a party to indemnification agreements with the Company. Pursuant to the Company’s indemnification agreements and directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, certain of the Company’s officers and directors will be indemnified and insured against the cost of defense, settlement or payment of a judgment under certain circumstances. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is indeterminable. The Company has never paid a material claim, nor has the Company been involved in litigation, with respect to these indemnification arrangements. As of June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, 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.