Commitments and Contingencies | 8. Commitments and Contingencies Aside from the below, as of March 31, 2022, there were no material changes to our commitments and contingencies as disclosed in the notes to our consolidated financial statements included in our 2021 10-K. Legal Contingencies On December 18, 2020, R. Brian Terenzini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:20-cv-11444). On January 8, 2021, Bryan Kearney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, also filed a class action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-00175). The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as interest, fees and costs. The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and assert that we failed to disclose to investors that Amazon.com, Inc. was developing its own mobile and online prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service that would compete directly with us. According to the complaints, when Amazon announced its competitor service, our stock price fell, causing investor losses. Lead plaintiff applications were submitted February 16, 2021, and on April 8, 2021, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption In re GoodRx Holdings, Inc.(Case No. 2:20-cv-11444) and appointed Betty Kalmanson, Lawrence Kalmanson, Shawn Kalmanson, and Janice Kasbaum as Lead Plaintiffs. On June 7, 2021, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint containing substantially similar factual allegations as the prior complaints, but adding claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated case on August 6, 2021 and Lead Plaintiffs subsequently filed an omnibus opposition to our motion to dismiss on October 5, 2021. We subsequently filed a reply in support of notice of motion and motion to dismiss. The court granted our motion to dismiss on January 2, 2022. The Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 7, 2022, and we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 10, 2022. Briefing is ongoing, and the hearing on the motion to dismiss the amended complaint is set for June 6, 2022. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims of the plaintiffs and members of the class and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. This litigation is at preliminary stages, and the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. On April 29, 2021, May 5, 2021 and September 15, 2021, Neesha Patel, Wayne Geist and Alan Pinyavat, respectively, each filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of us against certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-03671, Case No. 2:21-cv-03829 and Case No. 1:21-cv-01309, respectively). The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and contribution under the Exchange Act. Neesha Patel asserts additional claims for unjust enrichment and corporate waste and Alan Pinyavat asserts additional claims for unjust enrichment, abuse of control and gross mismanagement. These claims are based on allegations substantially similar to those in the class action lawsuit described above. Plaintiffs are requesting declaratory relief, money damages, restitution, and certain governance reforms. Plaintiffs did not make a pre-suit demand on our board of directors. The derivative lawsuits are stayed pending the outcome of the class action lawsuit. In March 2020, we received a letter from the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") indicating its intent to investigate our privacy and security practices to determine whether such practices comply with Section 5 of the FTC Act. In April 2020, the FTC sent an initial request for information to us regarding our sharing of data regarding individuals’ use of our website, app and services with service providers, including Google and Facebook. Since April 2020, we have timely responded to the FTC’s information requests and follow-up questions. On October 14, 2021, staff at the FTC notified us that it intends to recommend that the agency pursue an enforcement action against us and certain of our officers and employees. On January 12, 2022, staff at the FTC sent us a draft complaint and consent order. We believe we have complied with applicable regulations and that we have meritorious defenses to any claims or assertions to the contrary, and therefore intend to defend ourselves vigorously. No assurance can be given regarding the outcome of this matter. As a result of enforcements of this nature, there may be settlements, enforcement actions, or related litigation that could include monetary penalties and/or compliance requirements that may impose significant and material costs. Based upon information presently known to our management, we have not accrued a loss for the matters described above as a loss is not probable and reasonably estimable. While it is reasonably possible a loss may have been incurred, we are unable to estimate a loss or range of loss in these matters. The pending proceedings described above involve complex questions of fact and law and may require the expenditure of significant funds and the diversion of other resources to defend. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and material adverse outcomes are reasonably possible. In addition, during the normal course of business, we may become subject to, and is presently involved in, legal proceedings, claims and litigation. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Accruals for loss contingencies are recorded when a loss is probable, and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. |