Commitments and contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Office Lease Commitments At September 30, 2015 , the Company had various non-cancellable leases related to the Company’s office facilities which expire through 2030. The Company recorded rent expense of $1.2 million and $0.8 million for the three months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 , respectively. For the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 , total rent expense was $3.2 million and $2.1 million , respectively. San Francisco Office Lease In May 2014, the Company entered into a new facility lease in San Francisco (the “San Francisco Office”) with total future minimum lease commitments over 10 years, beginning August 1, 2014, of $7.0 million . In connection with this lease, the Company was required to obtain an irrevocable standby letter of credit in the amount of $0.8 million for the benefit of the landlord. Beginning August 1, 2017 through August 1, 2020, the letter of credit is subject to an annual reduction to as little as $0.2 million . The Company concluded that it was deemed the owner (for accounting purposes only) of the San Francisco Office during the construction period under build-to-suit lease accounting. As the Company assumed control of the construction project in the third quarter of 2014, the Company recorded the fair value of the leased property in “Property and equipment, net” and a corresponding liability in “Lease financing obligations” on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The Company recognized increases in the asset as additional building costs were incurred during the construction period. Additionally, imputed interest during the construction period was capitalized. At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , the Company has capitalized $8.7 million and $6.6 million , respectively, in “Property and equipment, net” and a corresponding current and non-current lease financing obligation of $6.8 million and $6.6 million , respectively. Upon completion of the construction during the first quarter of 2015, the Company had retained the fair value of the lease property and the obligation on its balance sheet as it did not qualify for sales and leaseback accounting due to requirements to maintain collateral in the lease. The Company records the rent payments as a reduction of the lease financing obligation and imputed interest expense; ground rent will be recorded as an operating expense. The fair value of the lease property is being depreciated over the building’s estimated useful life of forty years. At the conclusion of the lease term, the Company will de-recognize both the then carrying values of the asset and financing obligation. Santa Monica Office Lease In July 2014, the Company entered into a new facility lease in Santa Monica (the “Santa Monica Office”) with total future minimum lease commitments over fifteen years, beginning in January 2015, of $36.0 million . In connection with this lease, the Company obtained an irrevocable standby letter of credit in the amount of $3.5 million for the benefit of the landlord. Beginning October 1, 2019 through October 1, 2025, the letter of credit is subject to an annual reduction to as little as $1.2 million . The Company has concluded that it is deemed the owner (for accounting purposes only) of the Santa Monica Office during the construction period under build-to-suit lease accounting. As the Company assumed control of the construction project in the first quarter of 2015, the Company recorded the fair value of the leased property in “Property and equipment, net” and a corresponding liability in “Lease financing obligations” on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The Company recognizes increases in the asset as additional building costs are incurred during the construction period. Additionally, imputed interest is capitalized during the construction period. At September 30, 2015 , the Company has capitalized $27.6 million in “Property and equipment, net” and a corresponding current and non-current lease financing obligation of $22.1 million . Upon completion of the construction, which is estimated to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company will retain the fair value of the Santa Monica Office lease property and the obligation on its balance sheet as it does not qualify for sales leaseback accounting due to requirements to maintain collateral in the lease. The Company will record the rent payments as a reduction of the lease financing obligation and imputed interest expense; ground rent will be recorded as an operating lease. The fair value of the lease property will be depreciated over the building’s estimated useful life of forty years. At the conclusion of the lease term, the Company will de-recognize both the then carrying values of the asset and financing obligation. Other Lease Amendments and New Lease In February 2015, the Company amended an office lease for approximately 17,000 square feet in Santa Monica, California, to extend the lease term from June 2016 to December 2025. Additionally, beginning in 2016, the Company will lease approximately 21,000 additional square feet in the building through December 2025. The Company has the option to extend the lease term for portions of the space, or the entire space, for an additional five year period. The cumulative base rent over the lease term is expected to be approximately $26.0 million . In connection with the original lease for this space, the Company was required to obtain an irrevocable standby letter of credit, in the amount of $0.5 million for the benefit of its landlord. The current letter of credit expires June 30, 2016. In February 2015, the Company entered into a new five year office lease for approximately 6,000 square feet in Los Angeles, California which commenced in April 2015. The Company has the option to extend the lease for two additional five year periods. The cumulative base rent over the initial lease term is $3.0 million . Also in February 2015, the Company amended an office lease for approximately 5,000 square feet in Santa Monica, California to extend the lease term from May 2016 to March 2020. Additionally, in March 2015 the Company leased approximately 7,000 additional square feet through March 2020. The cumulative base rent over the lease term is expected to be approximately $3.6 million . Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company may become subject to legal proceedings, claims, and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company is not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, other than as described below. The Company filed a complaint against Sonic Automotive and Sonic Divisional Operations (collectively “Sonic”) on August 9, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The litigation concerns Sonic’s commercial use of the “True Price” mark. The Company was seeking an injunction prohibiting Sonic from using the “True Price” mark, as well as monetary damages incurred by the Company due to Sonic’s unlawful infringement. On July 29, 2015, the Company and Sonic reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation and entered into a “Term Sheet” reflecting the material terms of settlement. On August 4, 2015, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Sonic. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Sonic will discontinue use of the “True Price” mark and has transferred all of its rights to that mark to the Company, and the lawsuit has been dismissed. On March 9, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York (the "NY Lanham Act Litigation"). The complaint in the NY Lanham Act Litigation, purportedly filed on behalf of numerous automotive dealers who are not participating on the TrueCar platform, alleges that the Company has violated the Lanham Act as well as various state laws prohibiting unfair competition and deceptive acts or practices related to the Company’s advertising and promotional activities. The complaint seeks injunctive relief in addition to over $250 million in damages as a result of the alleged diversion of customers from the plaintiffs’ dealerships to TrueCar Certified Dealers. On April 7, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, and on July 13, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense costs, remains uncertain; accordingly, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome, or reasonably estimate the probability of or the range of loss, if any, for this action. As a result, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If this matter is not resolved in the Company’s favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. On May 20, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by the California New Car Dealers Association in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (the "CNCDA Litigation"). The complaint in the CNCDA Litigation seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on allegations that the Company is operating in the State of California as an unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker. The complaint does not seek monetary relief. On July 20, 2015, the Company filed a "demurrer" to the complaint, which is a pleading that requests the court to dismiss the case. Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, and on September 11, 2015, the Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense costs, remains uncertain; accordingly, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome or reasonably estimate the probability of or the range of loss, if any, for this action. As a result, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If this matter is not resolved in the Company’s favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. On May 27, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Federal Securities Litigation”) by Satyabrata Mahapatra naming the Company and two other individuals not affiliated with the Company as defendants. On June 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata and Correction purporting to name Scott Painter and Michael Guthrie as individual defendants in lieu of the two individual defendants named in the complaint. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. As amended, the complaint in the Federal Securities Litigation seeks an award of unspecified damages, interest and attorneys' fees based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that during the putative class period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company’s business practices violated unfair competition and deceptive trade practice laws (i.e., the issues raised in the NY Lanham Act Litigation); (ii) the Company acts as a dealer and broker in car sales transactions without proper licensing, in violation of various states’ laws that govern car sales (i.e., the issues raised in the CNCDA Litigation); and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company’s registration statements, prospectuses, quarterly and annual reports, financial statements, SEC filings, press releases, and other statements and documents were materially false and misleading at times relevant to the amended complaint and putative class period. The amended complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 16, 2014 to July 23, 2015. On October 19, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense costs, remains uncertain; accordingly, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome or reasonably estimate the probability of or the range of loss, if any, for this action. As a result, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If this matter is not resolved in the Company’s favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. On July 30, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles by numerous automotive dealers who are participating on the TrueCar platform (the "Participating Dealer Litigation"). On September 9, 2015, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. Both as originally filed and as subsequently amended, the complaint in the Participating Dealer Litigation sought declaratory and injunctive relief based on allegations that the Company is engaging in unfairly competitive practices and is operating as an unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker in contravention of various state laws. Neither the original nor amended complaint sought an award of money damages. On September 29, 2015, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit “without prejudice,” which means that the Participating Dealer Litigation is currently resolved, but that it could be re-filed at a later date. Because this case is currently resolved, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If the Participating Dealer Litigation is re-filed at a later date or if additional similar litigation is filed against the Company, and if such litigation is not resolved in the Company's favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as related defense costs or adverse changes in our dealer network, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. On August 11, 2015, the Company, certain of its executives and directors, and the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering and secondary offering were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in California Superior Court under the federal securities laws (the “California State Court Securities Litigation”). The complaint filed by Ning Shen and William Fitzpatrick, alleged that the Company’s registration statements in connection with the offerings contained false or misleading statements of material facts, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, prospects, and performance. On September 2, 2015, following the Company’s removal of the action from California state court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit “without prejudice,” which means that the California State Court Securities Litigation is currently resolved, but that it could be re-filed at a later date. Because this case is currently resolved, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If the California State Court Securities Litigation is re-filed at a later date, or if additional similar litigation, such as the Federal Securities Litigation, is filed against the Company, and if such litigation is not resolved in the Company's favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Employment Contracts The Company has entered into employment contracts with certain executives of the Company. Employment under these contracts is at-will employment. However, under the provisions of the contracts, the Company would incur severance obligations up to twelve months of the executive’s annual base salary for certain events such as involuntary terminations. Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnities of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, investors, directors, officers, employees and other parties 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 amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions may not be subject to maximum loss provisions. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is indeterminable. To date, there has not been a material claim paid by the Company, nor has the Company been sued in connection with these indemnification arrangements. At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , the Company has not accrued a liability for these guarantees, because the likelihood of incurring a payment obligation, if any, in connection with these guarantees is not probable or reasonably estimable. |