Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	11. 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 and April 2024, two of the Company’s stockholders filed separate purported shareholder derivative lawsuits 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 filed in April 2022 is captioned Godlu v. Hennessy et al., Case No. 22-cv-569, the case filed in April 2024 is captioned Hudda v. Hennessy et al. Case No. 24-cv-4499., and the court in each has approved the parties’ stipulations that each case would remain stayed pending final resolution of In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation. Both lawsuits remain in preliminary stages and there have been no substantive developments. In January 2022, the Company received a non-public civil investigative demand from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), seeking the production of information related to certain of the Company's business practices and the Company responded to those information requests. On February 23, 2024, the FTC notified the Company that it has reason to believe that the Company violated Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); the FTC's Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 435; the FTC’s Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule,16 C.F.R. Part 455; and the FTC’s Pre-Sale Availability Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 702. On May 6, 2024, Vroom, Inc., Vroom Automotive, LLC and the FTC reached an agreement to resolve the FTC’s allegations without any admission of wrongdoing by either Vroom entity, subject to final approval by the FTC and the court. Under the agreement, the Company agreed to pay a total of $1 million in customer redress and abide permanently by an injunction. The FTC issued its final approval of the agreement on July 2, 2024, and a mutually-agreed upon order reflecting the agreement was entered by the Court on July 10, 2024. The case is captioned Federal Trade Commission v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-02496. 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. In May 2022, Vroom Automotive, LLC and the Attorney General of the State of Texas agreed to a temporary injunction in which Vroom Automotive, LLC agreed to adhere to its existing practice of possessing title for all vehicles it sells or advertises as available for sale on its ecommerce platform. In December 2023, Vroom, Inc., Vroom Automotive, LLC and the Attorney General of the State of Texas reached a final agreement to resolve all claims in the petition, without any admission of wrongdoing by either Vroom entity. Under the agreement, the Company agreed to pay a total of $2 million in civil penalties and $1 million in attorneys' fees, with the first half due in September 2024 and the remaining half due in September 2025, and abide permanently by an injunction of certain operational practices that were previously implemented. As previously disclosed, the Company has been subject to audits, requests for information, investigations and other inquiries from its regulators. 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. Upon the filing of the Prepackaged Chapter 11 Case, it is anticipated that all litigation against the Debtor will be stayed pursuant to the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code. The RSA contemplates that all existing litigation will be unimpaired by the bankruptcy and the associated liabilities are not currently proposed to be discharged pursuant to the proposed plan of reorganization. Following the Plan Effective Date, it is anticipated that any litigation stayed during the Prepackaged Chapter 11 Case will continue. 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

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

11. 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 and April 2024, two of the Company’s stockholders filed separate purported shareholder derivative lawsuits 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 filed in April 2022 is captioned Godlu v. Hennessy et al., Case No. 22-cv-569, the case filed in April 2024 is captioned Hudda v. Hennessy et al. Case No. 24-cv-4499., and the court in each has approved the parties’ stipulations that each case would remain stayed pending final resolution of In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation. Both lawsuits remain in preliminary stages and there have been no substantive developments.

In January 2022, the Company received a non-public civil investigative demand from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), seeking the production of information related to certain of the Company's business practices and the Company responded to those information requests. On February 23, 2024, the FTC notified the Company that it has reason to believe that the Company violated Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); the FTC's Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 435; the FTC’s Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule,16 C.F.R. Part 455; and the FTC’s Pre-Sale Availability Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 702. On May 6, 2024, Vroom, Inc., Vroom Automotive, LLC and the FTC reached an agreement to resolve the FTC’s allegations without any admission of wrongdoing by either Vroom entity, subject to final approval by the FTC and the court. Under the agreement, the Company agreed to pay a total of $1 million in customer redress and abide permanently by an injunction. The FTC issued its final approval of the agreement on July 2, 2024, and a mutually-agreed upon order reflecting the agreement was entered by the Court on July 10, 2024. The case is captioned Federal Trade Commission v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-02496.

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. In May 2022, Vroom Automotive, LLC and the Attorney General of the State of Texas agreed to a temporary injunction in which Vroom Automotive, LLC agreed to adhere to its existing practice of possessing title for all vehicles it sells or advertises as available for sale on its ecommerce platform. In December 2023, Vroom, Inc., Vroom Automotive, LLC and the Attorney General of the State of Texas reached a final agreement to resolve all claims in the petition, without any admission of wrongdoing by either Vroom entity. Under the agreement, the Company agreed to pay a total of $2 million in civil penalties and $1 million in attorneys' fees, with the first half due in September 2024 and the remaining half due in September 2025, and abide permanently by an injunction of certain operational practices that were previously implemented.

As previously disclosed, the Company has been subject to audits, requests for information, investigations and other inquiries from its regulators. 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.

Upon the filing of the Prepackaged Chapter 11 Case, it is anticipated that all litigation against the Debtor will be stayed pursuant to the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code. The RSA contemplates that all existing litigation will be unimpaired by the bankruptcy and the associated liabilities are not currently proposed to be discharged pursuant to the

proposed plan of reorganization. Following the Plan Effective Date, it is anticipated that any litigation stayed during the Prepackaged Chapter 11 Case will continue.

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.