Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various pending and threatened litigation and regulatory matters related to our operations, such as claims brought by our clients in connection with commercial disputes, defamation claims by subjects of our reporting, and employment claims made by our current or former employees, some of which include claims for punitive or exemplary damages. Our ordinary course litigation may also include class action lawsuits, which make allegations related to various aspects of our business. From time to time, we are also subject to regulatory investigations or other proceedings by state and federal regulatory authorities as well as authorities outside of the U.S., some of which take the form of civil investigative demands or subpoenas. Some of these regulatory inquiries may result in the assessment of fines for violations of regulations or settlements with such authorities requiring a variety of remedies. We believe that none of these actions depart from customary litigation or regulatory inquiries incidental to our business. We review lawsuits and other legal and regulatory matters (collectively "legal proceedings") on an ongoing basis when making accrual and disclosure decisions. When assessing reasonably possible and probable outcomes, management bases its decision on its assessment of the ultimate outcome assuming all appeals have been exhausted. For legal proceedings where it has been determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, a liability based on known facts and which represents our best estimate has been recorded. Actual losses may materially differ from the amounts recorded and the ultimate outcome of our pending cases is generally not yet determinable. While some of these matters could be material to our operating results or cash flows for any particular period if an unfavorable outcome results, at present we do not believe the ultimate resolution of currently pending legal proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. In addition, in the normal course of business, and including without limitation, our merger and acquisition activities, strategic relationships and financing transactions, the Company indemnifies other parties, including clients, lessors and parties to other transactions with the Company, with respect to certain matters. We have agreed to hold the other parties harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations or covenants, or arising out of other claims made against certain parties. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. The Company has also entered into indemnity obligations with its officers and directors. Right of Publicity Class Actions DeBose v. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00209-ES-CLW (D.N.J.) On January 17, 2022, Plaintiff Rashad DeBose filed a Class Action Complaint against the Company, alleging that the Company used the purported class members’ names and personas to promote paid subscriptions to the Company’s Hoovers product website without consent, in violation of the Ohio right of publicity statute and Ohio common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or likeness. On March 30, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice on March 7, 2025. The time to appeal has expired, and Plaintiff has not appealed, meaning the case has terminated. Accordingly, we will no longer report on this matter. In accordance with ASC 450 Contingencies, the Company has no basis to determine that a loss in connection with this matter is both probable and reasonably estimable, and thus no reserve has been established. Batis v. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-01924-AGT (N.D.Cal.) On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff Odette R. Batis filed a Class Action Complaint against the Company, alleging that the Company used the purported class members’ names and personas to promote paid subscriptions to the Company’s Hoovers product website without consent, in violation of the California right of publicity statute, California common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or likeness and California’s Unfair Competition Law. On June 30, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute. On February 10, 2023, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss. The decision was subject to an automatic right of appeal, and the Company has appealed the matter to the Ninth Circuit. On January 18, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s determination that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply. On February 1, 2024, D&B filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc seeking to vacate the Ninth Circuit ruling. Subsequently, on February 15, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued an order stating that the petition will be held in abeyance pending the resolution of en banc rehearing of another similar case pending before the Ninth Circuit, Martinez v. ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. (“Martinez”). On March 1, 2024, the Ninth Circuit vacated the en banc rehearing in the Martinez case and continued to hold D&B’s Petition for Rehearing in abeyance. On July 8, 2024, the Ninth Circuit granted D&B’s Petition for Rehearing, withdrew its January 18, 2024 disposition and issued a new opinion and order affirming the District Court’s determination that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply. On July 30, 2024, a mandate was issued in the Ninth Circuit and the case has returned to the District Court. On September 27, 2024, the Company filed its Answer in the District Court, denying liability and asserting affirmative defenses. Discovery has now commenced in the District Court. In accordance with ASC 450 Contingencies, the Company is continuing to defend the claims and evaluate any potential exposure; however, at this time we have no basis to determine that a loss in connection with this matter is both probable and reasonably estimable, and thus no reserve has been established. FTC Matter On September 21, 2021, we agreed to enter into an Agreement Containing Consent Order (the “FTC Consent Order”) subject to acceptance by the FTC, the approval of which was finalized on April 6, 2022. The FTC Consent Order requires that we undertake specific compliance practices, recordkeeping, monitoring and reporting during its term, which ends on April 6, 2042. Our compliance with the FTC Consent Order may cause us to incur significant expenses or to reduce the availability or effectiveness of our solutions. Failure to comply with the FTC Consent Order could subject us to civil or criminal penalties or other liabilities. As required by the Consent Order, the Company has provided regular reporting to the FTC regarding its compliance with the Consent Order and timely complied with and responded to all FTC requests for information. In November 2024, the FTC sent the Company notice regarding alleged violations of the Consent Order and a potential FTC enforcement action. The Company is discussing a potential resolution of the matter with the FTC. In accordance with ASC 450 Contingencies, at this time, the Company has no basis to determine that a loss in connection with this matter is both probable and reasonably estimable, and thus no reserve has been established.

In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various pending and threatened litigation and regulatory matters related to our operations, such as claims brought by our clients in connection with commercial disputes, defamation claims by subjects of our reporting, and employment claims made by our current or former employees, some of which include claims for punitive or exemplary damages. Our ordinary course litigation may also include class action lawsuits, which make allegations related to various aspects of our business. From time to time, we are also subject to regulatory investigations or other proceedings by state and federal regulatory authorities as well as authorities outside of the U.S., some of which take the form of civil investigative demands or subpoenas. Some of these regulatory inquiries may result in the assessment of fines for violations of regulations or settlements with such authorities requiring a variety of remedies. We believe that none of these actions depart from customary litigation or regulatory inquiries incidental to our business.

We review lawsuits and other legal and regulatory matters (collectively "legal proceedings") on an ongoing basis when making accrual and disclosure decisions. When assessing reasonably possible and probable outcomes, management bases its decision on its assessment of the ultimate outcome assuming all appeals have been exhausted. For legal proceedings where it has been determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, a liability based on known facts and which represents our best estimate has been recorded. Actual losses may materially differ from the amounts recorded and the ultimate outcome of our pending cases is generally not yet determinable.

In addition, in the normal course of business, and including without limitation, our merger and acquisition activities, strategic relationships and financing transactions, the Company indemnifies other parties, including clients, lessors and parties to other transactions with the Company, with respect to certain matters. We have agreed to hold the other parties harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations or covenants, or arising out of other claims made against certain parties. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. The Company has also entered into indemnity obligations with its officers and directors.

On January 17, 2022, Plaintiff Rashad DeBose filed a Class Action Complaint against the Company, alleging that the Company used the purported class members’ names and personas to promote paid subscriptions to the Company’s Hoovers product website without consent, in violation of the Ohio right of publicity statute and Ohio common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or likeness. On March 30, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice on March 7, 2025. The time to appeal has expired, and Plaintiff has not appealed, meaning the case has terminated. Accordingly, we will no longer report on this matter.

On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff Odette R. Batis filed a Class Action Complaint against the Company, alleging that the Company used the purported class members’ names and personas to promote paid subscriptions to the Company’s Hoovers product website without consent, in violation of the California right of publicity statute, California common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or likeness and California’s Unfair Competition Law. On June 30, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute. On February 10, 2023, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss. The decision was subject to an automatic right of appeal, and the Company has appealed the matter to the Ninth Circuit. On January 18, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s determination that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply. On February 1, 2024, D&B filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc seeking to vacate the Ninth Circuit ruling. Subsequently, on February 15, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued an order stating that the petition will be held in abeyance pending the resolution of en banc rehearing of another similar case pending before the Ninth Circuit, Martinez v. ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. (“Martinez”). On March 1, 2024, the Ninth Circuit vacated the en banc rehearing in the Martinez case and continued to hold D&B’s Petition for Rehearing in abeyance. On July 8, 2024, the Ninth Circuit granted D&B’s Petition for Rehearing, withdrew its January 18, 2024 disposition and issued a new opinion and order affirming the District Court’s determination that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply. On July 30, 2024, a mandate was issued in the Ninth Circuit

On September 21, 2021, we agreed to enter into an Agreement Containing Consent Order (the “FTC Consent Order”) subject to acceptance by the FTC, the approval of which was finalized on April 6, 2022. The FTC Consent Order requires that we undertake specific compliance practices, recordkeeping, monitoring and reporting during its term, which ends on April 6, 2042. Our compliance with the FTC Consent Order may cause us to incur significant expenses or to reduce the availability or effectiveness of our solutions. Failure to comply with the FTC Consent Order could subject us to civil or criminal penalties or other liabilities.

As required by the Consent Order, the Company has provided regular reporting to the FTC regarding its compliance with the Consent Order and timely complied with and responded to all FTC requests for information. In November 2024, the FTC sent the Company notice regarding alleged violations of the Consent Order and a potential FTC enforcement action. The Company is discussing a potential resolution of the matter with the FTC.