Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation and Settlement From time to time we may become subject to legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, we are currently involved in the following litigation which is not incidental to our business: Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits. In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed against Vertro and certain of its former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which were subsequently consolidated. The consolidated complaint alleged that Vertro and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as “control persons.” Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and other relief alleging that, during the putative class period, Vertro made certain misleading statements and omitted material information. The court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on November 16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor of all Defendants on December 7, 2009. Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment ruling and the court's prior orders dismissing certain claims. On September 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of 9 of the 11 alleged misstatements and reversed the court's prior order on summary judgment and the case has been remanded to the District Court. In October 2012 the District Court entered an order maintaining the existing stay on discovery pending a ruling on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Derivative Stockholder Litigation. On July 25, 2005, a stockholder, Bruce Verduyn, filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of Vertro in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, against certain of Vertro's directors and officers. This action is based on substantially the same facts alleged in the securities class action litigation described above. The complaint is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount. By agreement of the parties and by orders of the court, the case was stayed pending the resolution of the defendant's motion to dismiss in the securities class action. On July 10, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the stay of the litigation. On July 13, 2007, the court granted the stipulation to continue the stay and administratively closed the case pending notification by plaintiff's counsel that the case is due to be reopened. Litigation Relating to the Merger. On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Vertro, its directors, Inuvo, and Anhinga Merger Subsidiary, Inc. on behalf of a putative class of Vertro shareholders (the “New York Action”). Two other complaints, also purportedly brought on behalf of the same class of shareholders, were filed on November 3 and 10, 2011, against these same defendants in Delaware Chancery Court and were ultimately consolidated by the Court (the “Delaware Action”). The plaintiffs in both the New York and the Delaware Actions alleged that Vertro's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties regarding the merger with Inuvo and that Vertro, Inuvo, and Anhinga Merger Subsidiary, Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs asked that the merger be enjoined and sought other unspecified monetary relief. Defendants in the Delaware Action moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, but before the briefing of that motion was complete the plaintiffs filed a notice and proposed order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which was entered by the Delaware Court on March 20, 2012. The defendants in the New York Action also moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative to stay proceedings. The New York Court granted Defendants' motion to stay on February 22, 2012 and, as a result of this ruling, the Court denied without prejudice defendants' motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's pending request for expedited discovery. Plaintiffs in the New York action then filed a Second Amended Complaint on June 19, 2012 and, on July 9, 2012, Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint for failure to state a claim. A hearing was held on January 31, 2013, regarding Defendants' motion to dismiss. In January 2014, the New York Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. Corporate Square, LLC v. Think Partnership, Inc., Scott Mitchell, and Kristine Mitchell; Case No. 08-019230-CI-11, in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. This complaint, filed on December 17, 2008, involves a claim by a former commercial landlord for alleged improper removal of an electric generator and for unpaid electricity expenses, amounting to approximately $60,000. The litigation has not been actively prosecuted. Inuvo is actively defending this action, and the co-defendants' separate counsel is likewise defending the claim against the co-defendants. Oltean, et al. v. Think Partnership, Inc.; Edmonton, Alberta CA. On March 6, 2008, Kelly Oltean, Mike Baldock and Terry Schultz, former employees, filed a breach of employment claim against Inuvo in The Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Edmonton, Canada, claiming damages for wrongful dismissal in the amount of $200,000 for each of Kelly Oltean and Terry Schultz and $187,500 for Mike Baldock. On March 6, 2008, the same three plaintiffs filed a similar statement of claim against Vintacom Acquisition Company, ULC, a subsidiary of Inuvo, again for wrongful dismissal and claiming the same damages. In October 2009, the two actions were consolidated. We are vigorously defending the matter.

Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation and Settlement

From time to time we may become subject to legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, we are currently involved in the following litigation which is not incidental to our business:

Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits. In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed against Vertro and certain of its former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which were subsequently consolidated. The consolidated complaint alleged that Vertro and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as “control persons.” Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and other relief alleging that, during the putative class period, Vertro made certain misleading statements and omitted material information. The court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on November 16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor of all Defendants on December 7, 2009. Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment ruling and the court's prior orders dismissing certain claims. On September 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of 9 of the 11 alleged misstatements and reversed the court's prior order on summary judgment and the case has been remanded to the District Court. In October 2012 the District Court entered an order maintaining the existing stay on discovery pending a ruling on the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Derivative Stockholder Litigation. On July 25, 2005, a stockholder, Bruce Verduyn, filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of Vertro in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, against certain of Vertro's directors and officers. This action is based on substantially the same facts alleged in the securities class action litigation described above. The complaint is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount. By agreement of the parties and by orders of the court, the case was stayed pending the resolution of the defendant's motion to dismiss in the securities class action. On July 10, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the stay of the litigation. On July 13, 2007, the court granted the stipulation to continue the stay and administratively closed the case pending notification by plaintiff's counsel that the case is due to be reopened.

Litigation Relating to the Merger. On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Vertro, its directors, Inuvo, and Anhinga Merger Subsidiary, Inc. on behalf of a putative class of Vertro shareholders (the “New York Action”). Two other complaints, also purportedly brought on behalf of the same class of shareholders, were filed on November 3 and 10, 2011, against these same defendants in Delaware Chancery Court and were ultimately consolidated by the Court (the “Delaware Action”). The plaintiffs in both the New York and the Delaware Actions alleged that Vertro's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties regarding the merger with Inuvo and that Vertro, Inuvo, and Anhinga Merger Subsidiary, Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs asked that the merger be enjoined and sought other unspecified monetary relief.

Defendants in the Delaware Action moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, but before the briefing of that motion was complete the plaintiffs filed a notice and proposed order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which was entered by the Delaware Court on March 20, 2012. The defendants in the New York Action also moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative to stay proceedings. The New York Court granted Defendants' motion to stay on February 22, 2012 and, as a result of this ruling, the Court denied without prejudice defendants' motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's pending request for expedited discovery. Plaintiffs in the New York action then filed a Second Amended Complaint on June 19, 2012 and, on July 9, 2012, Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint for failure to state a claim. A hearing was held on January 31, 2013, regarding Defendants' motion to dismiss. In January 2014, the New York Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Corporate Square, LLC v. Think Partnership, Inc., Scott Mitchell, and Kristine Mitchell; Case No. 08-019230-CI-11, in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. This complaint, filed on December 17, 2008, involves a claim by a former commercial landlord for alleged improper removal of an electric generator and for unpaid electricity expenses, amounting to approximately $60,000. The litigation has not been actively prosecuted. Inuvo is actively defending this action, and the co-defendants' separate counsel is likewise defending the claim against the co-defendants.

Oltean, et al. v. Think Partnership, Inc.; Edmonton, Alberta CA. On March 6, 2008, Kelly Oltean, Mike Baldock and Terry Schultz, former employees, filed a breach of employment claim against Inuvo in The Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Edmonton, Canada, claiming damages for wrongful dismissal in the amount of $200,000 for each of Kelly Oltean and Terry Schultz and $187,500 for Mike Baldock. On March 6, 2008, the same three plaintiffs filed a similar statement of claim against Vintacom Acquisition Company, ULC, a subsidiary of Inuvo, again for wrongful dismissal and claiming the same damages. In October 2009, the two actions were consolidated. We are vigorously defending the matter.