Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Reorganization In May 2020, the Company committed to a restructuring plan (the “Restructuring Plan”) in furtherance of its efforts to enhance productivity and efficiency, preserve profitability and streamline its organizational structure to better align operations with its long-term commitment to providing an enhanced consumer experience. The Company recorded restructuring costs of approximately $8.5 million in the second quarter of 2020 in connection with the Restructuring Plan. Of the total, the Company recorded $0.7 million in cost of revenue, $5.3 million in sales and marketing, $1.6 million in technology and development and $0.9 million in general and administrative expenses within the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive loss during the three and six months ended June 30, 2020. The Company expects the majority of the restructuring costs liability as of June 30, 2020 to be paid during the three months ended September 30, 2020 with the remainder to be paid by early 2021. The Company does not expect to incur significant additional charges in future periods related to the Restructuring Plan. The following table presents a roll forward of the restructuring costs liability for the six months ended June 30, 2020 (in thousands): Restructuring Costs Liability Accrual at December 31, 2019 $ 28 Expense 8,514 Cash Payments (2,139) Accrual at June 30, 2020 $ 6,403 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 was paid by the Company’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance. On October 15, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, and on January 27, 2020, the court issued a minute order granting final approval to the settlement. The court entered the final judgment and order of dismissal on May 26, 2020. As a result, the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation is resolved. Because the settlement was fully funded by the Company’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, the Company removed the settlement liability and offsetting insurance receivable of $28.25 million from its consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2019. 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. On November 18, 2019, the court entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, and on December 13, 2019, the plaintiff appealed that judgment. The Company believes that the appeal 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 June 30, 2020 as the Company does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. Delaware Consolidated 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 Consolidated 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. On December 19, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to make a pre-suit demand. 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 June 30, 2020 as the Company does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. Lee Derivative Litigation In December 2019, Sulgi Lee, a purported stockholder, filed a derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery 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 complaint named the Company, certain of its then-current and former directors and officers and USAA as defendants. The plaintiff seeks an award of damages against the defendants on the Company’s behalf and various alleged corporate governance reforms. On May 5, 2020, the court entered the parties’ stipulation to stay this litigation pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss in the Delaware Consolidated Derivative 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 June 30, 2020 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 June 30, 2020 as the Company does not believe a loss is probable. Trademark Litigation On April 9, 2020, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Six Star, Inc. (“Six Star”) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the “Trademark Litigation”). The complaint in the Trademark Litigation alleges that the Company’s new “BUY SMARTER DRIVE HAPPIER” tagline infringed and diluted Six Star’s “BUY SMART BE HAPPY” trademark and included claims of false advertising and deceptive and unfair trade practices. The complaint seeks injunctive relief in addition to certain monetary awards. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The Company did not record an accrual related to this matter as of June 30, 2020, 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 |