Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	5. Commitments and Contingencies The Company is periodically involved in various litigation claims asserted in the normal course of its business. The Company believes these actions are routine and incidental to the business. While the outcome of these actions cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does not believe that any will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business. Class Action Litigation On April 16, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, captioned Celeste v. Intrusion Inc. et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00307 (E.D. Tex.) against the Company, the Company’s now-former chief financial officer, and now-former chief executive officer alleging, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Celeste lawsuit claimed compensatory damages and legal fees. On May 14, 2021, a related class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, captioned Neely v. Intrusion Inc., et al., Case No. 4:12-cv-00374 (E.D. Tex.) against the Company, the Company’s now-former chief financial officer, and now-former chief executive officer. The Neely lawsuit alleged the same violations under the federal securities laws as those alleged in the Celeste lawsuit. The Neely lawsuit also sought compensatory damages and legal fees. On November 23, 2021, the Court consolidated the Celeste and Neely actions, and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel. The lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint on February 7, 2022. The amended complaint named the following additional parties as named defendants: Mr. Michael Paxton, a former director and executive officer; Mr. Gary Davis, a former officer; Mr. Joe Head, the current chief technology officer, and a former director; and Mr. James Gero, a current director and chair of the compensation committee. The parties to the consolidated action held a mediation on April 5, 2022, at the conclusion of which the parties executed a settlement term sheet setting forth the material terms associated with the resolution of the action, subject to the preparation of formal documents and a plan of distribution approved by the Court. The settlement agreement was subject to certain terms and conditions and received final approval by the Court on December 16, 2022. At that time, a final judgment was entered dismissing the case, with the Court retaining jurisdiction over the action for purposes of enforcing the terms of the class settlement agreement. The $3.3 million settlement was paid by the Company’s insurance provider under its insurance policy as the Company’s retention had previously been exhausted. The lead plaintiff in the class action filed a motion for distribution of settlement funds on February 21, 2023. The Court approved the parties’ class action settlement and plan of allocation on March 22, 2023, and cancelled the previously rescheduled March 31, 2023, hearing on the motion for distribution, all remaining matters in the class action then-pending having been fully and finally adjudicated. Securities Investigation On August 8, 2021, the Company received a notification from the Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Enforcement, that it was investigating captioned In the Matter of Intrusion Inc. and requesting the Company produce certain documents and information. On November 9, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission served a subpoena to the Company in connection with this investigation which formally requested substantially similar information as in the prior request. The Company is continuing to comply with the requests and is cooperating in the investigation. The Company can offer no assurances as to the outcome of this investigation or its potential effect on the Company or its results of operations. Stockholder Derivative Claim On June 3, 2022, a verified stockholder derivative complaint was filed in U.S. District Court, District of Delaware by plaintiff Nathan Prawitt (the “Plaintiff Stockholder”) on behalf of Intrusion against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors (the “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants through various actions breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets, and unjustly enriched Defendants by (a) incurring costs and expenses in connection with the ongoing SEC investigation, (b) incurring costs and expenses to defend the Company with respect to the consolidated class action, (c) settling class-wide liability with respect to the consolidated class action, as well as ancillary claims regarding sales of the Company’s common stock by certain of the Defendants. The Plaintiff is seeking remedial actions including improvements in the Company’s corporate governance and internal control policies and reimbursement of legal costs. While the Company is not a named defendant, but a nominal plaintiff in the stockholder derivative claim, the Company will be providing the financial and other assistance for each of the Defendants that the Company is obligated to provide under the Company’s Articles of Incorporation, the Company’s Bylaws, as well as individual indemnifications agreements that are in effect between, the Company and each of the Defendants. In addition to these legal proceedings, the Company is subject to various other claims that may arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company does not believe that any claims exist where the outcome of such matters would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial position, operating results, or cash flows. However, there can be no assurance such legal proceedings will not have a material impact on the Company’s future results.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

5. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is periodically involved in various litigation claims asserted in the normal course of its business. The Company believes these actions are routine and incidental to the business. While the outcome of these actions cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does not believe that any will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business.

Class Action Litigation

On April 16, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, captioned Celeste v. Intrusion Inc. et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00307 (E.D. Tex.) against the Company, the Company’s now-former chief financial officer, and now-former chief executive officer alleging, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Celeste lawsuit claimed compensatory damages and legal fees.

On May 14, 2021, a related class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, captioned Neely v. Intrusion Inc., et al., Case No. 4:12-cv-00374 (E.D. Tex.) against the Company, the Company’s now-former chief financial officer, and now-former chief executive officer. The Neely lawsuit alleged the same violations under the federal securities laws as those alleged in the Celeste lawsuit. The Neely lawsuit also sought compensatory damages and legal fees.

On November 23, 2021, the Court consolidated the Celeste and Neely actions, and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel. The lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint on February 7, 2022. The amended complaint named the following additional parties as named defendants: Mr. Michael Paxton, a former director and executive officer; Mr. Gary Davis, a former officer; Mr. Joe Head, the current chief technology officer, and a former director; and Mr. James Gero, a current director and chair of the compensation committee.

The parties to the consolidated action held a mediation on April 5, 2022, at the conclusion of which the parties executed a settlement term sheet setting forth the material terms associated with the resolution of the action, subject to the preparation of formal documents and a plan of distribution approved by the Court. The settlement agreement was subject to certain terms and conditions and received final approval by the Court on December 16, 2022. At that time, a final judgment was entered dismissing the case, with the Court retaining jurisdiction over the action for purposes of enforcing the terms of the class settlement agreement. The $3.3 million settlement was paid by the Company’s insurance provider under its insurance policy as the Company’s retention had previously been exhausted.

The lead plaintiff in the class action filed a motion for distribution of settlement funds on February 21, 2023. The Court approved the parties’ class action settlement and plan of allocation on March 22, 2023, and cancelled the previously rescheduled March 31, 2023, hearing on the motion for distribution, all remaining matters in the class action then-pending having been fully and finally adjudicated.

Securities Investigation

On August 8, 2021, the Company received a notification from the Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Enforcement, that it was investigating captioned In the Matter of Intrusion Inc. and requesting the Company produce certain documents and information. On November 9, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission served a subpoena to the Company in connection with this investigation which formally requested substantially similar information as in the prior request. The Company is continuing to comply with the requests and is cooperating in the investigation. The Company can offer no assurances as to the outcome of this investigation or its potential effect on the Company or its results of operations.

Stockholder Derivative Claim

On June 3, 2022, a verified stockholder derivative complaint was filed in U.S. District Court, District of Delaware by plaintiff Nathan Prawitt (the “Plaintiff Stockholder”) on behalf of Intrusion against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors (the “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants through various actions breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets, and unjustly enriched Defendants by (a) incurring costs and expenses in connection with the ongoing SEC investigation, (b) incurring costs and expenses to defend the Company with respect to the consolidated class action, (c) settling class-wide liability with respect to the consolidated class action, as well as ancillary claims regarding sales of the Company’s common stock by certain of the Defendants. The Plaintiff is seeking remedial actions including improvements in the Company’s corporate governance and internal control policies and reimbursement of legal costs. While the Company is not a named defendant, but a nominal plaintiff in the stockholder derivative claim, the Company will be providing the financial and other assistance for each of the Defendants that the Company is obligated to provide under the Company’s Articles of Incorporation, the Company’s Bylaws, as well as individual indemnifications agreements that are in effect between, the Company and each of the Defendants.

In addition to these legal proceedings, the Company is subject to various other claims that may arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company does not believe that any claims exist where the outcome of such matters would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial position, operating results, or cash flows. However, there can be no assurance such legal proceedings will not have a material impact on the Company’s future results.