Commitments and contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Lease Exit Costs In December 2015, the Company consolidated its Santa Monica, California office locations and recognized a liability for lease exit costs incurred based on the remaining lease rental due, reduced by estimated sublease rental income that could be reasonably obtained for the properties. The liability is recorded in accrued expenses and other current liabilities (current portion) and other liabilities (non-current portion) within the consolidated balance sheets. The following table presents a roll forward of the lease exit liability for the three months ended March 31, 2016: Lease Exit Costs Accrual at December 31, 2015 $ 1,988 Cash Payments (674 ) Accrual at March 31, 2016 $ 1,314 Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company may become subject to legal proceedings, claims, and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. When the Company becomes aware of a claim or potential claim, it assesses the likelihood of any loss or exposure. In accordance with authoritative guidance, the Company records loss contingencies in its financial statements only for matters in which losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Where a range of loss can be reasonably estimated with no best estimate in the range, the Company records the minimum estimated liability. If the loss is not probable or the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, the Company discloses the nature of the specific claim if the likelihood of a potential loss is reasonably possible and the amount involved is material. The Company continuously assesses the potential liability related to the Company’s pending litigation and revises its estimates when additional information becomes available. Below is a list of material legal proceedings to which the Company is a party. 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. On January 6, 2016, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with respect to some, but not all, of the advertising and promotional activities challenged in the amended complaint. The Company believes that the portions of the amended complaint that survived the Company’s motion to dismiss are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. We have not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015, as we do not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. 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. On December 7, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s demurrer in its entirety, but afforded the CNCDA the opportunity to file a second amended complaint. The CNCDA filed a second amended complaint on January 4, 2016. The second amended complaint reiterates the claims in the prior complaints and adds claims under theories based on the federal Lanham Act and California unfair competition law. On February 3, 2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint. On March 30, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s demurrer to the second amended complaint, dismissing the Lanham Act claim but declining to dismiss the balance of the claims at the demurrer stage of the litigation. The Company believes that the portions of the second amended complaint that survived the Company’s demurrer are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. We have not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015, as we do not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. 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, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, and Michael Guthrie, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, 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. On December 9, 2015, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case in its entirety. On January 8, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. We have not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015, as we do not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. On December 23, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (the “California Consumer Class Action”). The complaint asserts claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and violation of the California Business and Professions Code, based principally on factual allegations similar to those asserted in the NY Lanham Act Litigation and the CNCDA Litigation. The complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California consumers defined as “[a]ll California consumers who purchased an automobile by using TrueCar, Inc.’s price certificate during the applicable statute of limitations.” On January 12, 2016, the Court entered an order staying all proceedings in the case pending an initial status conference, which was previously scheduled for April 13, 2016. On March 16, 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. As a result of that reassignment, the initial status conference was not held on April 13, 2016, and will be rescheduled for another date. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. We have not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015, as we do not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. 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. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company incurred severance costs related to its former CEO and several executive-level employees who terminated their employment. The following table presents a roll forward of the executive severance liability for the three months ended March 31, 2016: Executive Severance Costs Accrual at December 31, 2015 2,803 Cash Payments (985 ) Accrual at March 31, 2016 $ 1,818 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 March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , 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. |