Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	13. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation From time to time, the Company is involved in various claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business and an unfavorable resolution of any of these matters could materially affect the Company’s future results of operations, cash flows or financial position. The Company is also party to various disputes that the Company considers routine and incidental to its business. The Company does not expect the results of any of these routine actions to have a material effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. The Company accrues a liability when a loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When a material loss contingency is reasonably possible but not probable, the Company does not record a liability, but instead discloses the nature and the amount of the claim, and an estimate of the loss or range of loss, if such an estimate can be made. Legal fees are expensed as incurred. Beginning in March 2021, multiple putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by certain of the Company’s stockholders against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers alleging violations of federal securities laws. The lawsuits were captioned Zawatsky et al. v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-2477; Holbrook v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-2551; and Hudda v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-3296. All three of the lawsuits asserted similar claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5. In each case, the named plaintiff(s) sought to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during a period from June 9, 2020 to March 3, 2021 (in the case of Holbrook and Hudda), or November 11, 2020 to March 3, 2021 (in the case of Zawatsky). In August 2021, the Court consolidated the cases under the new name In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-2477, appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and ordered a consolidated amended complaint to be filed. The court-appointed lead plaintiff subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint that reasserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers, and added new claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act against the Company, certain of its officers, certain of its directors, and the underwriters of the Company’s September 2020 secondary offering. The Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims, and briefing of this motion is complete. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously contest these claims. While the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations. In August 2021, November 2021, January 2022, and February 2022, various Company stockholders filed purported shareholder derivative lawsuits on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain of the Company’s officers and directors, and nominally against the Company, alleging violations of the federal securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty to the Company and/or related violations of Delaware law based on the same general course of conduct alleged in In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation. All four lawsuits have been consolidated under the case caption In re Vroom, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-6933, and the court has approved the parties’ stipulation that the cases would remain stayed pending final resolution of In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation. All four derivative suits remain in preliminary stages and there have been no substantive developments in any matter. In April 2022, one of the Company’s stockholders filed a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against certain of the Company’s officers and directors, and nominally against the Company, alleging violations of the federal securities law and breaches of fiduciary duty to the Company and/or related violations of Delaware law based on the same general course of conduct alleged in In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation. The case is captioned Godlu v. Hennessy et al., Case No. 22-cv-569, and the court has approved the parties’ stipulation that the case would remain stayed pending final resolution of In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation. This lawsuit remains in preliminary stages and there have been no substantive developments. In April 2022, the Attorney General of Texas filed a petition on behalf of the State of Texas in the District Court of Travis County, Texas against the Company, alleging violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices − Consumer Protection Act, Texas Business and Commerce Code § 17.41 et seq., based on alleged deficiencies and other issues in the Company’s marketing of used vehicles and fulfilment of customer orders, including the titling and registration of sold vehicles. According to the petition, 80% of the customer complaints referenced in the petition were received in the 12 months prior to April 2022. The petition is captioned State of Texas v. Vroom Automotive LLC, and Vroom Inc., Case No. D-1-GN-001809. Vroom Automotive, LLC and the Attorney General of the State of Texas have agreed to a temporary injunction in which Vroom Automotive, LLC agrees to adhere to its existing practice of possessing title for all vehicles it sells or advertises as available for sale on its ecommerce platform. Vroom continues to work cooperatively with the office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas towards a resolution. Because the case is at an early stage and the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, the Company cannot determine at present whether any potential liability would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations. In July 2022 and August 2022, respectively, certain plaintiffs filed two putative class action lawsuits in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma and the New York State Supreme Court, respectively, against Vroom, Inc., and Vroom Automotive LLC as defendants, alleging, among other things, deficiencies in Vroom’s titling and registration of sold vehicles: Blake Sonne, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. Vroom Automotive, LLC and Vroom, Inc., No. CJ-2022-822 and Emely Reyes Martinez, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Vroom Automotive, LLC and Vroom Inc., No. 652684/2022. The Company removed the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Case No. 22-cv-761) and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 22-cv-7631), respectively, and has filed motions to compel arbitration of all claims in both cases. Because these cases are at early stages and the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, the Company cannot determine at present whether any potential liability would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations. As previously disclosed, the Company has been subject to audits, requests for information, investigations and other inquiries from its regulators relating to increased customer complaints concerning the same or similar matters alleged in the State of Texas petition. These regulatory matters could continue to progress into legal proceedings as well as enforcement actions. The Company has incurred fines in certain states and could continue to incur fines, penalties, restitution, or alterations in the Company's business practices, which in turn, could lead to increased business expenses, additional limitations on the Company's business activities and further reputational damage, although to date such expenses have not had a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations. Nasdaq Notice On June 23, 2023, the Company received written notice from The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) informing the Company that it has regained compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5450(a)(1), which requires that companies listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market maintain a minimum bid price of $1.00 per share. As previously reported, on April 14, 2023, the Company received a letter from Nasdaq indicating that, for the preceding 30 consecutive business days, the bid price for the Company’s common stock had closed below the $1.00 per share minimum bid price requirement for continued inclusion on the Nasdaq Global Select Market pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5450(a)(1) (the “Minimum Bid Price Requirement”). In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(C), the Company had been provided an initial period of 180 calendar days from the Nasdaq notification, or until October 11, 2023, to regain compliance. To regain compliance, the Company was required to maintain the Minimum Bid Price Requirement for a minimum of ten consecutive business days. In its June 23, 2023 notice, Nasdaq notified the Company that the closing bid price of its common stock had been at $1.00 per share or greater for 11 consecutive business days, from June 8, 2023 to June 22, 2023. Accordingly, the Company regained compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Requirement and the matter was closed. Other Matters The Company enters into agreements with third parties in the ordinary course of business that may contain indemnification provisions. In the event that an indemnification claim is asserted, the Company’s liability, if any, would be limited by the terms of the applicable agreement. Historically, the Company has not incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to indemnification provisions.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

13. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

From time to time, the Company is involved in various claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business and an unfavorable resolution of any of these matters could materially affect the Company’s future results of operations, cash flows or financial position. The Company is also party to various disputes that the Company considers routine and incidental to its business. The Company does not expect the results of any of these routine actions to have a material effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. The Company accrues a liability when a loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When a material loss contingency is reasonably possible but not probable, the Company does not record a liability, but instead discloses the nature and the amount of the claim, and an estimate of the loss or range of loss, if such an estimate can be made. Legal fees are expensed as incurred.

Beginning in March 2021, multiple putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by certain of the Company’s stockholders against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers alleging violations of federal securities laws. The lawsuits were captioned Zawatsky et al. v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-2477; Holbrook v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-2551; and Hudda v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-3296. All three of the lawsuits asserted similar claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5. In each case, the named plaintiff(s) sought to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during a period from June 9, 2020 to March 3, 2021 (in the case of Holbrook and Hudda), or November 11, 2020 to March 3, 2021 (in the case of Zawatsky). In August 2021, the Court consolidated the cases under the new name In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-2477, appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and ordered a consolidated amended complaint to be filed. The court-appointed lead plaintiff subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint that reasserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers, and added new claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act against the Company, certain of its officers, certain of its directors, and the underwriters of the Company’s September 2020 secondary offering. The Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims, and briefing of this motion is complete. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously contest these claims. While the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations.

In August 2021, November 2021, January 2022, and February 2022, various Company stockholders filed purported shareholder derivative lawsuits on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain of the Company’s officers and directors, and nominally against the Company, alleging violations of the federal securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty to the Company and/or related violations of Delaware law based on the same general course of conduct alleged in In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation. All four lawsuits have been consolidated under the case caption In re Vroom, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-6933, and the court has approved the parties’ stipulation that the cases would remain stayed pending final resolution of In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation. All four derivative suits remain in preliminary stages and there have been no substantive developments in any matter.

In April 2022, one of the Company’s stockholders filed a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against certain of the Company’s officers and directors, and nominally against the Company, alleging violations of the federal securities law and breaches of fiduciary duty to the Company and/or related violations of Delaware law based on the same general course of conduct alleged in In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation. The case is captioned Godlu v. Hennessy et al., Case No. 22-cv-569, and the court has approved the parties’ stipulation that the case would remain stayed pending final resolution of In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation. This lawsuit remains in preliminary stages and there have been no substantive developments.

In April 2022, the Attorney General of Texas filed a petition on behalf of the State of Texas in the District Court of Travis County, Texas against the Company, alleging violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices − Consumer Protection Act, Texas Business and Commerce Code § 17.41 et seq., based on alleged deficiencies and other issues in

the Company’s marketing of used vehicles and fulfilment of customer orders, including the titling and registration of sold vehicles. According to the petition, 80% of the customer complaints referenced in the petition were received in the 12 months prior to April 2022. The petition is captioned State of Texas v. Vroom Automotive LLC, and Vroom Inc., Case No. D-1-GN-001809. Vroom Automotive, LLC and the Attorney General of the State of Texas have agreed to a temporary injunction in which Vroom Automotive, LLC agrees to adhere to its existing practice of possessing title for all vehicles it sells or advertises as available for sale on its ecommerce platform. Vroom continues to work cooperatively with the office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas towards a resolution. Because the case is at an early stage and the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, the Company cannot determine at present whether any potential liability would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations.

In July 2022 and August 2022, respectively, certain plaintiffs filed two putative class action lawsuits in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma and the New York State Supreme Court, respectively, against Vroom, Inc., and Vroom Automotive LLC as defendants, alleging, among other things, deficiencies in Vroom’s titling and registration of sold vehicles: Blake Sonne, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. Vroom Automotive, LLC and Vroom, Inc., No. CJ-2022-822 and Emely Reyes Martinez, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Vroom Automotive, LLC and Vroom Inc., No. 652684/2022. The Company removed the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Case No. 22-cv-761) and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 22-cv-7631), respectively, and has filed motions to compel arbitration of all claims in both cases. Because these cases are at early stages and the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, the Company cannot determine at present whether any potential liability would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations.

As previously disclosed, the Company has been subject to audits, requests for information, investigations and other inquiries from its regulators relating to increased customer complaints concerning the same or similar matters alleged in the State of Texas petition. These regulatory matters could continue to progress into legal proceedings as well as enforcement actions. The Company has incurred fines in certain states and could continue to incur fines, penalties, restitution, or alterations in the Company's business practices, which in turn, could lead to increased business expenses, additional limitations on the Company's business activities and further reputational damage, although to date such expenses have not had a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations.

Nasdaq Notice

On June 23, 2023, the Company received written notice from The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) informing the Company that it has regained compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5450(a)(1), which requires that companies listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market maintain a minimum bid price of $1.00 per share.

As previously reported, on April 14, 2023, the Company received a letter from Nasdaq indicating that, for the preceding 30 consecutive business days, the bid price for the Company’s common stock had closed below the $1.00 per share minimum bid price requirement for continued inclusion on the Nasdaq Global Select Market pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5450(a)(1) (the “Minimum Bid Price Requirement”). In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(C), the Company had been provided an initial period of 180 calendar days from the Nasdaq notification, or until October 11, 2023, to regain compliance. To regain compliance, the Company was required to maintain the Minimum Bid Price Requirement for a minimum of ten consecutive business days.

In its June 23, 2023 notice, Nasdaq notified the Company that the closing bid price of its common stock had been at $1.00 per share or greater for 11 consecutive business days, from June 8, 2023 to June 22, 2023. Accordingly, the Company regained compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Requirement and the matter was closed.

Other Matters

The Company enters into agreements with third parties in the ordinary course of business that may contain indemnification provisions. In the event that an indemnification claim is asserted, the Company’s liability, if any, would be

limited by the terms of the applicable agreement. Historically, the Company has not incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to indemnification provisions.