Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
May 04, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings We are subject to legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business, as well as certain other non-ordinary course proceedings, claims and investigations, as described below. We make a provision for a loss contingency when it is both probable that a material liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue the low end of the range. For proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable and an estimate of the loss or range of losses arising from the proceeding can be made, we disclose such an estimate, if material. If such a loss or range of losses is not reasonably estimable, we disclose that fact. We review any such loss contingency provisions at least quarterly and adjust them to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. We recognize insurance recoveries, if any, when they are probable of receipt. All associated costs due to third-party service providers and consultants, including legal fees, are expensed as incurred. Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable. It is possible that our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be materially negatively affected in any particular period by an unfavorable resolution of one or more of such legal proceedings. On July 29, 2024, a putative shareholder derivative action captioned Getz v. Nelson, No. 3:24-cv-1260, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of the Company against certain of its current and former officers and directors. Two similar shareholder derivative actions, captioned Valle v. Dellomo, No. 3:24-cv-1327, and McKinnon v. Nelson, No. 3:24-cv-1343, were filed in the same court against the same defendants on August 19, 2024, and August 21, 2024, respectively. The cases assert claims on behalf of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the Exchange Act, unjust enrichment, corporate waste, and aiding and abetting primary violations. The factual allegations underlying those claims are similar to those alleged in the securities class action. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other costs. On September 20, 2024, the Court consolidated the three lawsuits under the caption In re The Lovesac Company Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:24-cv-01260-VAB (i.e., the “Derivative Action”). On May 19, 2025, the parties signed a definitive agreement to settle the Derivative Action. On June 2, 2025, plaintiffs’ counsel filed an unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. On June 3, 2025, the Court granted the motion for preliminary approval. A final approval hearing has been set for October 1, 2025. If the Court approves the settlement, the Company will implement certain governance reforms and will pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Company does not expect the settlement to have a material impact to the financial statements. On March 21, 2024, a putative class action complaint related to the Company’s pricing was filed against the Company. The lawsuit, captioned Nguyen v. The Lovesac Company, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, and was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The complaint generally alleges that the Company falsely advertised discounts on certain products. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, including treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief related to the Company’s sales practices, and attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other expenses. On June 24, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On July 15, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On August 12, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint. On November 26, 2024, the court entered an order to stay all proceedings in the case in light of a mediation of the dispute scheduled for January 23, 2025. The parties were unable to come to an agreement at the January 23, 2025 mediation. On February 7, 2025, the court unstayed the proceedings in the case for the purpose of ruling on the Company's pending motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend, but dismissed Plaintiff's request for equitable relief, including injunctive relief, without leave to amend.. On April 18, 2025, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On June 2, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s second amended complaint. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss from this proceeding.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

May 04, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business, as well as certain other non-ordinary course proceedings, claims and investigations, as described below. We make a provision for a loss contingency when it is both probable that a material liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue the low end of the range. For proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable and an estimate of the loss or range of losses arising from the proceeding can be made, we disclose such an estimate, if material. If such a loss or range of losses is not reasonably estimable, we disclose that fact. We review any such loss contingency provisions at least quarterly and adjust them to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. We recognize insurance recoveries, if any, when they are probable of receipt. All associated costs due to third-party service providers and consultants, including legal fees, are expensed as incurred. Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable. It is possible that our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be materially negatively affected in any particular period by an unfavorable resolution of one or more of such legal proceedings.

On July 29, 2024, a putative shareholder derivative action captioned Getz v. Nelson, No. 3:24-cv-1260, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of the Company against certain of its current and former officers and directors. Two similar shareholder derivative actions, captioned Valle v. Dellomo, No. 3:24-cv-1327, and McKinnon v. Nelson, No. 3:24-cv-1343, were filed in the same court against the same defendants on August 19, 2024, and August 21, 2024, respectively. The cases assert claims on behalf of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the Exchange Act, unjust enrichment, corporate waste, and aiding and abetting primary violations. The factual allegations underlying those claims are similar to those alleged in the securities class action. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other costs. On September 20, 2024, the Court consolidated the three lawsuits under the caption In re The Lovesac Company Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:24-cv-01260-VAB (i.e., the “Derivative Action”). On May 19, 2025, the parties signed a definitive agreement to settle the Derivative Action. On June 2, 2025, plaintiffs’ counsel filed an unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. On June 3, 2025, the Court granted the motion for preliminary approval. A final approval hearing has been set for October 1, 2025. If the Court approves the settlement, the Company will implement certain governance reforms and will pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Company does not expect the settlement to have a material impact to the financial statements.

On March 21, 2024, a putative class action complaint related to the Company’s pricing was filed against the Company. The lawsuit, captioned Nguyen v. The Lovesac Company, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, and was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The complaint generally alleges that the Company falsely advertised discounts on certain products. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, including treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief related to the Company’s sales practices, and attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other expenses. On June 24, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On July 15, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On August 12, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint. On November 26, 2024, the court entered an order to stay all proceedings in the case in light of a mediation of the dispute scheduled for January 23, 2025. The parties were unable to come to an agreement at the January 23, 2025 mediation. On February 7, 2025, the court unstayed the proceedings in the case for the purpose of ruling on the Company's pending motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend, but dismissed Plaintiff's request for equitable relief, including injunctive relief, without leave to amend.. On April 18, 2025, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On June 2, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s second amended complaint. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss from this proceeding.