Commitments and contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Lease Exit Costs The Company had historically accounted for exit and disposal activities through the use of a lease exit liability. Under the new leasing guidance, the remaining lease exit liability was eliminated and the remaining balance was included as an adjustment to reduce the ROU assets for the relevant properties. Refer to Note 3 for further details. Reorganization In January 2019, the Company initiated and completed a restructuring plan (the “Reorganization Plan”) to improve efficiency and reduce expenses. The Company recorded severance costs of approximately $3.3 million in the first quarter of 2019 in connection with the Reorganization Plan. These costs were recorded within cost of revenue, sales and marketing, technology and development, and general and administrative expenses within our consolidated statement of comprehensive loss. The Company does not expect to incur significant additional charges in future periods related to this Reorganization Plan. The following table presents a roll forward of the severance liability for the three months ended March 31, 2019 (in thousands): Reorganization Liability Accrual at December 31, 2018 $ — Expense 3,280 Cash Payments (3,093 ) Accrual at March 31, 2019 $ 187 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. The Company is not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, other than as described below. On March 9, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for 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 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 in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss with respect to some, but not all, of the advertising and promotional activities challenged in the amended complaint. Discovery in this matter has been completed. On January 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to exclude testimony from the plaintiffs’ damages expert. On April 10 and April 11, 2018, the court held an evidentiary hearing on that motion. On May 9, 2018, the court granted the Company’s motion to exclude testimony from the plaintiffs’ damages expert. On July 2, 2018, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the amended complaint in its entirety. On March 27, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion, allowing the plaintiffs to pursue disgorgement of the Company’s profits on a deterrence theory but granting summary judgment to the Company on the other aspects of the plaintiffs’ claims. On April 9, 2019, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s ruling. The court has not yet ruled on that motion. The Company believes that the portions of the amended complaint that survived the Company’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2019 , as it does 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 California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (the “CNCDA Litigation”). The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief based on allegations that the Company was operating in the State of California as an unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker. The complaint did not seek monetary relief. On July 20, 2015, the Company filed a “demurrer” to the complaint, which is a pleading that requests that the court 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 reiterated the claims in the prior complaints and added 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. On May 31, 2016, based on certain intervening developments in state law, the court announced that it would reconsider its March 30, 2016 order, and it invited the parties to file new briefs on the demurrer issues. On July 15, 2016, the court heard oral argument on reconsideration of the demurrer issues. On July 25, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s demurrer to the second amended complaint, just as it had done in its March 30, 2016 order. The litigation was previously scheduled for trial in August 2017. On April 3, 2017, the court indicated that the trial date would be postponed to a future date. On May 17, 2017, the court scheduled trial to begin on December 11, 2017. Prior to the commencement of trial, the parties entered into settlement negotiations, and on December 14, 2017, the parties entered into a binding Settlement Agreement and Release (the “CNCDA Settlement Agreement”) to fully resolve the litigation. Pursuant to the CNCDA Settlement Agreement, the litigation was dismissed with prejudice on December 21, 2017. In light of the full resolution of this matter pursuant to the CNCDA Settlement Agreement, the Company does not believe that an additional loss is probable. 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 complaint asserted 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 sought an award of unspecified damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. In the complaint, the plaintiff sought 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 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 rescheduled for and held on May 26, 2016. By stipulation, the stay of discovery was continued until a second status conference, which was scheduled for October 12, 2016. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff amended his complaint. The amended complaint continues to assert claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The amended complaint retains the same proposed class definition as the initial complaint. Like the initial complaint, the amended complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages, punitive and exemplary damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. On September 12, 2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. On October 12, 2016, the court heard oral argument on the demurrer. On October 13, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s demurrer to the amended complaint, dismissing the unjust enrichment claim but declining to dismiss the balance of the claims at the demurrer stage of the litigation. At a status conference held on January 26, 2017, the court ruled that discovery could then proceed regarding matters related to class certification only. At a status conference held on July 25, 2017, the court set a deadline of January 8, 2018 for the filing of the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and provided that discovery could continue to proceed regarding matters related to class certification only at that time. Subsequently, the court extended to February 7, 2018 the deadline for the filing of plaintiff’s motion for class certification and for the completion of related discovery. On February 7, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The court held a hearing on the plaintiff’s class certification motion on July 12, 2018 and denied the motion on July 27, 2018. On September 26, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and proceedings in the trial court have been stayed pending the resolution of the appeal. The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2019 as the Company does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. On June 30, 2017, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Kip Haas in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint asserted claims for violation of the California Business and Professions Code, based principally on allegations of false and misleading advertising and unfair business practices. The complaint sought an award of unspecified damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. In the complaint, the plaintiff sought to represent a class of consumers defined as “[a]ll consumers, who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the present, obtained a TrueCar ‘guaranteed’ price” and “[a]ll consumers, who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the present, obtained a TrueCar ‘guaranteed’ price pertaining to a vehicle located at Riverside Mazda.” On or around October 23, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter on an individual (non-classwide) basis in exchange for the payment of an immaterial amount to Mr. Haas. On November 27, 2017, the parties entered into a binding Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the “Haas Settlement Agreement”) on the same financial terms agreed to in principle on or around October 23, 2017. Thereafter, the Company fully satisfied the financial terms of the Haas Settlement Agreement, and pursuant to the Haas Settlement Agreement, the litigation was dismissed with prejudice on December 1, 2017. In light of the full resolution of this matter pursuant to the Haas Settlement Agreement, and the Company does not believe that an additional loss beyond the above-noted immaterial payment is probable. On October 18, 2017, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Cox Automotive, Inc. (“Cox Automotive”) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the County of Nassau. As it relates to the Company, the complaint sought an award of unspecified damages, disgorgement, return of property taken or retained, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. The complaint alleged that the Company engaged in tortious interference with a contractual relationship between Cox Automotive and one of its former employees, among other claims against the former Cox Automotive employee, who is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. On October 20, 2017, the court granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Company from employing the former Cox Automotive employee pending the court’s ruling on Cox Automotive’s request for the entry of a preliminary injunction. On November 13, 2017, oral argument was held on Cox Automotive’s request for the entry of a preliminary injunction. On January 23, 2018, the court dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied the request by Cox Automotive for the entry of a preliminary injunction. On February 27, 2018, the parties filed a “stipulation of discontinuance,” which terminated the case. The Company was not required to make any monetary payment or provide any other consideration in exchange for the stipulation of discontinuance. In light of the termination of the litigation on this basis, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2019 , as the Company does not believe a loss is probable. On March 30, 2018, the Company and one of its former officers were named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed by Leon Milbeck in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation”). The complaint sought an award of unspecified damages, interest, attorney’s fees and equitable relief based on allegations that the defendants made false or misleading statements about our business, operations, prospects and performance during a purported class period of February 16, 2017 through November 6, 2017 in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On June 27, 2018, the court appointed the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 24, 2018. The amended complaint reiterated the claims in the prior complaint and added claims under Section 11 of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also added our chief executive officer Chip Perry, our former interim chief financial officer John Pierantoni, our former chief financial officer Michael Guthrie and our underwriters and directors who signed the registration statement for our secondary offering that occurred during the class period (the “2017 Registration Statement”) as defendants. On October 31, 2018, the plaintiff dismissed the underwriters from the litigation “without prejudice,” meaning that they could be reinstated as defendants at a later time, and on November 5, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court denied on February 5, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the court granted lead plaintiff’s motion for class certification and scheduled trial to begin on November 5, 2019. The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2019 as the Company does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. On March 6, 2019, the Company, its chief executive officer Chip Perry, its former chief financial officer Michael Guthrie, its former interim chief financial officer John Pierantoni, its directors who signed the 2017 Registration Statement and USAA were named as defendants in a derivative action filed by Dean Drulias nominally on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment and seeks contribution for damages awarded against the Company in the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation and an award of unspecified damages, interest, attorney’s fees and equitable relief based on substantially the same factual allegations as the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2019 as the Company does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. On April 1 and April 3, 2019, respectively, the Company, its chief executive officer Chip Perry, its former chief financial officer Michael Guthrie, its former interim chief financial officer John Pierantoni, its directors who signed the 2017 Registration Statement and USAA were named as defendants in derivative actions filed by Ara Afarian and Shelley Niemi nominally on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints allege breach of Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act as well as breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment and seek contribution for damages awarded against the Company in the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation and an award of unspecified damages, interest, attorney’s fees and equitable relief based on substantially the same factual allegations as the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation. The Niemi complaint also seeks rescission of certain contracts. On April 17, 2019, the two cases, and all similar cases originating in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, were consolidated into a single action bearing the caption In re TrueCar, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation. The Company believes that the complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2019 as the Company does 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 of 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 intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. These indemnities 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, 2019 and December 31, 2018 , 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. |