Litigation and Settlements	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Settlements	Litigation and Settlements 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 its 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. On March 28, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter. This proposed settlement is subject to review and approval by the District Court. As part of the proposed settlement, the insurance carrier is expected to pay $2.4 million to stockholders in the class. The settlement is not expected to require any direct payment by us. On May 14, 2014, the parties entered a Stipulation of Settlement. On May 22, 2014, the District Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. A hearing to determine whether the District Court should issue an order finally approving the proposed settlement has been scheduled for September 15, 2014. As part of the settlement, the insurance carrier will pay $2.4 million to stockholders in the class. The settlement requires no direct payment by us. 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. 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, but the plaintiff recently served discovery requests seeking additional information. 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. The case is in the discovery stage and Inuvo is vigorously defending the matter. Admanage Litigation. In May 2014 we filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County Arkansas against certain former distribution partners of our Publisher Network, Admanage S.A., ClickFind Media Corp., Neo Clicks, Inc. and Neoclicks Internet Services Corp., demanding return of an aggregate of approximately $134,000 paid to such distribution partners during time periods when we allege that the activities of the distribution partners violated our terms of service. In July 2014 Admanage S.A., Neoclicks Internet Services and ClickFind Media Corp. filed a suit against us in United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division, alleging, among other things breach of contract for non payment of approximately $696,000 allegedly earned by the distribution partners.

Litigation and Settlements

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 its 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. On March 28, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter. This proposed settlement is subject to review and approval by the District Court. As part of the proposed settlement, the insurance carrier is expected to pay $2.4 million to stockholders in the class. The settlement is not expected to require any direct payment by us. On May 14, 2014, the parties entered a Stipulation of Settlement. On May 22, 2014, the District Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. A hearing to determine whether the District Court should issue an order finally approving the proposed settlement has been scheduled for September 15, 2014. As part of the settlement, the insurance carrier will pay $2.4 million to stockholders in the class. The settlement requires no direct payment by us.

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.

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, but the plaintiff recently served discovery requests seeking additional information. 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. The case is in the discovery stage and Inuvo is vigorously defending the matter.

Admanage Litigation. In May 2014 we filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County Arkansas against certain former distribution partners of our Publisher Network, Admanage S.A., ClickFind Media Corp., Neo Clicks, Inc. and Neoclicks Internet Services Corp., demanding return of an aggregate of approximately $134,000 paid to such distribution partners during time periods when we allege that the activities of the distribution partners violated our terms of service. In July 2014 Admanage S.A., Neoclicks Internet Services and ClickFind Media Corp. filed a suit against us in United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division, alleging, among other things breach of contract for non payment of approximately $696,000 allegedly earned by the distribution partners.