Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	13. Commitments and Contingencies Refer to “Note 10. Leases” and “Note 12. Debt,” for details of contractual obligations for our noncancelable operating leases and principal payments under our debt agreements, respectively. Purchase Commitments As of December 31, 2022, we had aggregate purchase commitments of $21.3 million for cloud hosting services pursuant to which we committed to spend approximately $7.1 million per annum through 2025. Legal Contingencies On December 18, 2020, R. Brian Terenzini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against us and certain of our 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 us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-00175). The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages as well as interest, fees and costs. The complaints alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and asserted that we 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 us. According to the complaints, when Amazon announced its competitor service, our stock price fell, causing investor losses. 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 9, 2022, the court dismissed the consolidated case with prejudice and the consolidated case was closed as of December 31, 2022. On April 29, 2021, May 5, 2021 and September 15, 2021, Neesha Patel, Wayne Geist and Alan Pinyavat, respectively, each filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of us against certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-03671, Case No. 2:21-cv-03829 and Case No. 1:21-cv-01309, respectively). The plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and contribution under the Exchange Act. Neesha Patel asserted additional claims for unjust enrichment and corporate waste and Alan Pinyavat asserted additional claims for unjust enrichment, abuse of control and gross mismanagement. These claims were based on allegations substantially similar to those in the class action lawsuit described above. On August 12, 2022, Alan Pinyavat filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and the case was closed as of December 31, 2022. On August 24, 2022, the parties for the consolidated Patel and Geist case filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the consolidated case and the consolidated case was closed as of December 31, 2022. In March 2020, we received a letter from the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") indicating its intent to investigate our privacy and security practices to determine whether such practices comply with Section 5 of the FTC Act. In April 2020, the FTC sent an initial request for information to us regarding our sharing of data regarding individuals’ use of our website, app and services with service providers, including Google and Facebook. Subsequent to the initial request we timely responded to the FTC's additional information requests and follow-up questions. On January 12, 2022, staff at the FTC sent us an initial draft complaint and consent order. Notwithstanding our belief that we have complied with applicable regulations and have meritorious defenses to any claims or assertions to the contrary, on February 1, 2023, we reached a negotiated settlement with the FTC (a "proposed consent order") in an effort to resolve all claims and allegations arising out of or relating to the FTC investigation and includes a monetary settlement amount of $1.5 million, which was accrued as a component of accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2022. The proposed consent order also includes agreements to effect or maintain, as applicable, certain changes to our business practices, policies and compliance requirements that may impose additional costs that we do not believe would be material both individually and in the aggregate to us. The proposed consent order has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and was approved and entered on February 17, 2023. There have been class action litigations filed against us in relation to the allegations detailed in the FTC’s proposed consent order. On February 2, 2023, Jane Doe (proceeding under a pseudonym) filed a putative nationwide class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On February 3, 2023, plaintiff E.C. (also proceeding under a pseudonym) filed a putative nationwide class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 17, 2023, John Doe (proceeding under a pseudonym) filed a putative nationwide class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The cases are substantially similar; each generally alleges that we have not adequately protected consumer privacy and that we communicated consumer information to third parties including Google, Meta, and Criteo. Plaintiffs in the Jane Doe and John Doe cases allege California common law intrusion upon seclusion and unjust enrichment claims, as well as claims under California’s Medical Information Act, Invasion of Privacy Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff in the John Doe case additionally brings a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Plaintiff in the E.C. case brings claims for common-law unjust enrichment and violations of New York’s General Business Law. We intend to seek dismissal of the claims. Based upon information presently known, and unless otherwise stated, we have not accrued a loss for the matters described above as a loss is not probable and reasonably estimable. While it is reasonably possible a loss may have been incurred, we are unable to estimate a loss or range of loss in these matters. 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 reasonably possible. In addition, during the normal course of business, we may become subject to, and are 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 recognized when a loss is probable, and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. Indemnifications Our amended and restated bylaws provides that we will indemnify our directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law. Certain of our officers and directors are also a party to indemnification agreements. Pursuant to our indemnification agreements and directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, certain of our 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 we may be required to make under these indemnification provisions is indeterminable. We have never paid a material claim, nor have we been involved in litigation, with respect to these indemnification arrangements. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, we did not accrue 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

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

13. Commitments and Contingencies

Refer to “Note 10. Leases” and “Note 12. Debt,” for details of contractual obligations for our noncancelable operating leases and principal payments under our debt agreements, respectively.

Purchase Commitments

As of December 31, 2022, we had aggregate purchase commitments of $21.3 million for cloud hosting services pursuant to which we committed to spend approximately $7.1 million per annum through 2025.

Legal Contingencies

On December 18, 2020, R. Brian Terenzini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against us and certain of our 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 us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-00175). The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages as well as interest, fees and costs. The complaints alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and asserted that we 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 us. According to the complaints, when Amazon announced its competitor service, our stock price fell, causing investor losses. 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

9, 2022, the court dismissed the consolidated case with prejudice and the consolidated case was closed as of December 31, 2022.

On April 29, 2021, May 5, 2021 and September 15, 2021, Neesha Patel, Wayne Geist and Alan Pinyavat, respectively, each filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of us against certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-03671, Case No. 2:21-cv-03829 and Case No. 1:21-cv-01309, respectively). The plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and contribution under the Exchange Act. Neesha Patel asserted additional claims for unjust enrichment and corporate waste and Alan Pinyavat asserted additional claims for unjust enrichment, abuse of control and gross mismanagement. These claims were based on allegations substantially similar to those in the class action lawsuit described above. On August 12, 2022, Alan Pinyavat filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and the case was closed as of December 31, 2022. On August 24, 2022, the parties for the consolidated Patel and Geist case filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the consolidated case and the consolidated case was closed as of December 31, 2022.

In March 2020, we received a letter from the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") indicating its intent to investigate our privacy and security practices to determine whether such practices comply with Section 5 of the FTC Act. In April 2020, the FTC sent an initial request for information to us regarding our sharing of data regarding individuals’ use of our website, app and services with service providers, including Google and Facebook. Subsequent to the initial request we timely responded to the FTC's additional information requests and follow-up questions. On January 12, 2022, staff at the FTC sent us an initial draft complaint and consent order. Notwithstanding our belief that we have complied with applicable regulations and have meritorious defenses to any claims or assertions to the contrary, on February 1, 2023, we reached a negotiated settlement with the FTC (a "proposed consent order") in an effort to resolve all claims and allegations arising out of or relating to the FTC investigation and includes a monetary settlement amount of $1.5 million, which was accrued as a component of accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2022. The proposed consent order also includes agreements to effect or maintain, as applicable, certain changes to our business practices, policies and compliance requirements that may impose additional costs that we do not believe would be material both individually and in the aggregate to us. The proposed consent order has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and was approved and entered on February 17, 2023.

There have been class action litigations filed against us in relation to the allegations detailed in the FTC’s proposed consent order. On February 2, 2023, Jane Doe (proceeding under a pseudonym) filed a putative nationwide class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On February 3, 2023, plaintiff E.C. (also proceeding under a pseudonym) filed a putative nationwide class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 17, 2023, John Doe (proceeding under a pseudonym) filed a putative nationwide class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The cases are substantially similar; each generally alleges that we have not adequately protected consumer privacy and that we communicated consumer information to third parties including Google, Meta, and Criteo. Plaintiffs in the Jane Doe and John Doe cases allege California common law intrusion upon seclusion and unjust enrichment claims, as well as claims under California’s Medical Information Act, Invasion of Privacy Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff in the John Doe case additionally brings a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Plaintiff in the E.C. case brings claims for common-law unjust enrichment and violations of New York’s General Business Law. We intend to seek dismissal of the claims. Based upon information presently known, and unless otherwise stated, we have not accrued a loss for the matters described above as a loss is not probable and reasonably estimable. While it is reasonably possible a loss may have been incurred, we are unable to estimate a loss or range of loss in these matters. 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 reasonably possible.

In addition, during the normal course of business, we may become subject to, and are 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 recognized when a loss is probable, and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated.

Indemnifications

Our amended and restated bylaws provides that we will indemnify our directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law. Certain of our officers and directors are also a party to indemnification agreements. Pursuant to our indemnification agreements and directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, certain of our 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 we may be required to make under these indemnification provisions is indeterminable. We have never paid a material claim, nor have we been involved in litigation, with respect to these indemnification arrangements. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, we did not accrue 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.