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 and Executive Departures 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 the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive loss. The Company does not expect to incur significant additional charges in future periods related to this Reorganization Plan. In the second quarter of 2019, the Company incurred severance costs totaling $4.6 million associated with the separations of executive-level employees, including its former chief executive officer. Of the total, the Company recorded $0.4 million in sales and marketing, $0.9 million in technology and development and $3.3 million in general and administrative expenses in the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive loss during the nine months ended September 30, 2019. The following table presents a roll forward of the severance liability for the nine months ended September 30, 2019 (in thousands): Severance Liability Accrual at December 31, 2018 $ — Expense 7,871 Cash Payments (7,809 ) Accrual at September 30, 2019 $ 62 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. Stockholder Litigation Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation On March 30, 2018, Leon Milbeck filed a putative securities class action against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation”). On June 27, 2018, the court appointed the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, who filed an amended complaint on August 24, 2018. The amended 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 the Company’s 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 and that the defendants made actionable misstatements in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act in connection with our secondary offering that occurred during the class period. The amended complaint named the Company, certain of its then-current and former officers and directors and the underwriters for its secondary offering 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 the lead plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On August 2, 2019, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation on a class-wide basis for $28.25 million , all of which will be paid by the Company’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance. On October 15, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and scheduled a final approval hearing on January 27, 2020. The settlement is subject to class notice, potential objections and opt-outs, and final approval by the court. As of September 30, 2019 , the proposed settlement amount and offsetting insurance receivable of $28.25 million are included in “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities” and “Other current assets” in the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets. California Derivative Litigation On March 6, 2019, the Company, certain of its then-current and former officers and directors 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 “California Derivative Litigation”). On March 12, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which alleged breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment and violation of Section 10(b) and Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act and sought contribution for damages awarded against us 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. On May 13, 2019, the Company filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens based upon the exclusive forum provision of the Company’s certificate of incorporation, failure to make a pre-suit demand on the Company’s board of directors and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On October 23, 2019, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the state-law claims with prejudice on the grounds of forum non conveniens and granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the federal-law claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim. In light of these rulings, the court declined to address the Company’s motion to dismiss for failure to show pre-suit demand futility. The court permitted the plaintiff to amend his complaint with respect to the dismissed federal-law claims, but on November 5, 2019, he informed the court that he declined to do so and stated his intent to appeal the court’s ruling. 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 September 30, 2019 as the Company does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. Delaware Chancery Derivative Litigation In August 2019, three purported stockholder derivative actions were filed in Delaware alleging a variety of claims nominally on the Company’s behalf arising out of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under Delaware law based upon substantially the same factual allegations as the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation. The complaints named the Company, certain of its then-current and former directors and officers, USAA and, in one of the actions, certain entities affiliated with USAA and certain of our current and former directors as defendants. On October 7, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the cases into a single action in that court bearing the caption In re TrueCar, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation (the “Delaware Derivative Litigation”). On November 6, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against all of the defendants named in the prior actions, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, contribution and indemnification against the Company’s current and former officers and directors, and claims for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against the entities affiliated with USAA and with certain of the Company’s current and former directors. The plaintiffs seek an award of damages against the defendants on behalf of the Company and various alleged corporate governance reforms. The Company expects to file motions to dismiss for failure to make a pre-suit demand and failure to state a claim similar to the motions it filed in the California Derivative Litigation. The Company believes that the consolidated 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 September 30, 2019 as the Company does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. Delaware Federal Derivative Litigation In April 2019, the Company, certain of its then-current and former directors and officers and USAA were named as defendants in derivative actions nominally on behalf of the Company filed by Ara Afarian and Shelley Niemi in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints alleged breach of Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act as well as breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment and sought 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 sought rescission of certain contracts. On April 17, 2019, the cases were consolidated into a single action bearing the caption In re TrueCar, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation . On September 4, 2019, the court granted the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss the litigation without prejudice, meaning it could be re-filed at a later date. In light of the termination of the litigation on this basis, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of September 30, 2019 as the Company does not believe a loss is probable. The Lanham Act Litigation On March 9, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit purportedly filed on behalf of numerous automotive dealers who are not on the TrueCar platform 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 alleged 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 sought 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. 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, which the court granted on July 12, 2019. As a result, the court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety as to the plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claim. In light of the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ sole federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims alleged by the amended complaint and therefore dismissed them without prejudice, meaning that the state-law claims could be re-filed in state court at a later date. The plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of their claims, and the deadline for doing so passed in August 2019, so the NY Lanham Act Litigation is currently resolved. In light of the termination of the litigation, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of September 30, 2019 , as it does not believe a loss is probable. The California Consumer Class Action 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 allegations that the Company was operating in the State of California as an unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker as well as factual allegations similar to those asserted in the NY Lanham Act 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 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 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. On February 7, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the court denied 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. On October 8, 2019, the court of appeal heard argument, but has not yet issued a decision in this matter. 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 September 30, 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 |