loss, is not reasonably estimable. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and upon final resolution of
these matters, it is reasonably possible that the actual loss may differ from our estimate.
Securities class action & derivative lawsuits - On April 22, 2024, Lisa Marie Barsuli, 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. 2:24-cv-3282). The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and
equitable relief as well as interest, fees and costs. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and asserts that we and certain of our executive officers failed to
disclose to investors the risk relating to a grocery chain taking actions that impacted acceptance of our discounted pricing for
a subset of prescription drugs from PBMs, whose pricing we promote on our platform (the “grocer issue”), which occurred
late in the first quarter of 2022. As alleged in the complaint, when we disclosed the occurrence of the grocer issue, our stock
price fell, causing investor losses. On July 25, 2024, U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr. appointed The Kalmanson Family
as the lead plaintiff and approved selection of lead plaintiff's counsel. We filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit on
November 19, 2024. On January 10, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to our motion to dismiss, and we filed our
response on February 11, 2025.
Additionally, on various dates between May 23, 2024 and November 6, 2024, alleged stockholders Benjamin Solomon
(Case No. 2:24-cv-04301), Joseph Caetano (Case No. 2:24-cv-06993), Colby Mayes (Case No. 2:24-cv-07264), Sharon
Burgs (Case No. 2:24-cv-07281), and Stephen Bushansky (Case No. 2:24-cv-09611) each filed separate derivative lawsuits
in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in each case, purportedly on behalf of us against
certain of our current and former executive officers and directors. The derivative complaints assert various claims, including
for violations of, and contribution under, the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control,
gross mismanagement, corporate waste and violations of insider trading laws. The claims in each of these derivative
lawsuits are based on allegations substantially similar to those in the class action lawsuit described above and also allege
that we failed to maintain adequate internal controls. The plaintiffs in these derivative lawsuits are seeking declaratory relief,
monetary damages, restitution, disgorgement of alleged illegal profits and/or certain governance reforms. On December 20,
2024, plaintiffs in the derivative lawsuits agreed to consolidate the cases and stay the action pending the resolution of the
securities class action's motion to dismiss. On February 20, 2025, the court granted the stipulation.
Consumer state litigations - On May 28, 2024, The Bert and Annette Mullens Foundation filed a lawsuit against us in
Pope County, Arkansas, alleging that we violated an Arkansas statute related to the distribution of health-related discount
cards. Specifically, the statute provides that each discount card must “expressly provide in bold and prominent type that the
discounts are not insurance.” Ark. Code Ann. § 4-106-201(1). Furthermore, the statute provides that each card must
“expressly provide in bold and prominent type on the card or in a statement attached to the card that the consumer has the
right to cancel his or her registration within thirty (30) days from the effective date of the card.” Ark. Code Ann. §
4-106-201(2). The plaintiff alleges that our cards did not comply with these requirements, and sought an injunction and
statutory damages. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied on December 2, 2024. Furthermore, on
June 11, 2024, the Minnesota Teamsters Service Bureau, also filed a lawsuit against us in Hennepin County, Minnesota,
alleging that we violated a Minnesota statute related to the distribution of health-related discount cards. Specifically, the
statute provides that each discount card must “expressly provide in bold and prominent type that the discounts are not
insurance.” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325F.784, subd. 1(1). The plaintiff alleges that our cards do not comply with these
requirements and also seeks an injunction and statutory damages. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was
denied on December 17, 2024. Discovery is ongoing in both matters.
We intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the securities class action, derivative lawsuits, and
consumer state litigations. We believe we have meritorious defenses to such claims and based upon information presently
known to management, we have not accrued a loss for these lawsuits as a loss is not probable nor 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. These pending proceedings involve complex questions of fact and law and may require the expenditure of
significant funds and the diversion of other resources to defend. In addition, during the normal course of business, we
(including our directors and officers whom we indemnify) may become subject to, and are presently involved in, legal
proceedings, claims and litigation. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with
assurance. We have not accrued for a loss for any other matters as a loss is not probable and a loss, or a range of loss, is
not reasonably estimable. Accruals for loss contingencies are recognized when a loss is probable, and the amount of such
loss can be reasonably estimated. See "Note 9. Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities" for additional information.
Loss recoveries are recognized when a loss has been incurred and the recovery is probable. See "Note 4. Prepaid
Expenses and Other Current Assets" for additional information.
GoodRx as plaintiff in arbitration award - In February 2023, we initiated arbitration against Famulus Health, LLC
(“Famulus”) before the American Arbitration Association in relation to Famulus’ breach of an agreement entered into by
Famulus and us in June 2020, as amended (the “Agreement”). We asserted claims for Famulus' breach of the confidentiality
and exclusivity provisions in the Agreement, seeking to recover damages and injunctive relief. On February 15, 2024, an
arbitration award was rendered, which included a damages award and a permanent injunction (the "Arbitration Award").
Famulus filed a petition to vacate the Arbitration Award on February 21, 2024 in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina ("DSC"). We filed a petition to confirm the Arbitration Award on February 22, 2024 in the DSC. In
April 2024, several motions and oppositions were filed, which were consolidated by the DSC on April 12, 2024. On
September 11, 2024, the DSC entered an opinion and order denying Famulus’s motion to vacate the Arbitration Award and