Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies Aside from the below, as of June 30, 2022, there are 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. The Lead Plaintiffs filed a response to file an opposition to our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 14, 2022 and we filed a response on May 4, 2022. On June 9, 2022, the court granted our motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. 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 a final judgment of the class action lawsuit. Based upon information presently known to our management, we have not accrued a loss for the class action and derivative lawsuits described above as the possibility of loss is remote. 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 they intended 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 an initial draft complaint and consent order. Notwithstanding our belief that we have complied with applicable regulations and have meritorious defenses to any claims or assertions to the contrary, we are negotiating a settlement with the FTC in an effort to resolve all claims and allegations arising out of or relating to the FTC investigation. Settlement with the FTC, and/or related litigation with other parties, could include monetary costs and/or compliance requirements that impose costs to us. These costs may be material both individually and in the aggregate. Based on recent discussions with the FTC and the FTC’s recent settlement proposals, we have determined that a loss is probable and have accrued a reasonable estimate of the loss of $2.8 million during the three months ended June 30, 2022 within accrued expenses and other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. While this amount represents our best judgment of the probable loss based on the information currently available to us, it is subject to significant judgments and estimates and numerous factors beyond our control, including without limitation the FTC’s position with respect to the ongoing settlement negotiations. No assurance can be given regarding the ultimate outcome of this matter. Actual loss can be significantly greater or less than our estimated accrual. In the event that the FTC investigation results in a settlement payment by us, or a judgment against us, in an amount significantly in excess of our accrual, the resulting liability could have a material adverse effect upon our financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. In addition, during the normal course of business, we 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. Accruals for loss contingencies are recorded when a loss is probable, and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

8. Commitments and Contingencies

Aside from the below, as of June 30, 2022, there are 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. The Lead Plaintiffs filed a response to file an opposition to our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 14, 2022 and we filed a response on May 4, 2022. On June 9, 2022, the court granted our motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.

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 a final judgment of the class action lawsuit.

Based upon information presently known to our management, we have not accrued a loss for the class action and derivative lawsuits described above as the possibility of loss is remote.

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 they intended 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 an initial draft complaint and consent order. Notwithstanding our belief that we have complied with applicable regulations and have meritorious defenses to any claims or assertions to the contrary, we are negotiating a settlement with the FTC in an effort to resolve all claims and allegations arising out of or relating to the FTC investigation. Settlement with the FTC, and/or related litigation with other parties, could include monetary costs and/or compliance requirements that impose costs to us. These costs may be material both individually and in the aggregate. Based on recent discussions with the FTC and the FTC’s recent settlement proposals, we have determined that a loss is probable and have accrued a reasonable estimate of the loss of $2.8 million during the three months ended June 30, 2022 within accrued expenses and other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. While this amount represents our best judgment of the probable loss based on the information currently available to us, it is subject to significant judgments and estimates and numerous factors beyond our control, including without limitation the FTC’s position with respect to the ongoing settlement negotiations. No assurance can be given regarding the ultimate outcome of this matter. Actual loss can be significantly greater or less than our estimated accrual. In the event that the FTC investigation results in a settlement payment by us, or a judgment against us, in an amount significantly in excess of our accrual, the resulting liability could have a material adverse effect upon our financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

In addition, during the normal course of business, we 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. Accruals for loss contingencies are recorded when a loss is probable, and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated.