Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Commitments The Company has contractual obligations to make future payments related to its outstanding convertible senior notes, which are presented in Note 10. Convertible Senior Notes, and its long-term operating leases, which are presented in Note 11. Leases. Legal Matters From time to time, Teladoc Health is involved in various litigation matters arising in the normal course of business, including the matters described below. The Company consults with legal counsel on those issues related to litigation and seeks input from other experts and advisors with respect to such matters. Estimating the probable losses or a range of probable losses resulting from litigation, government actions, and other legal proceedings is inherently difficult and requires an extensive degree of judgment, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages, may involve discretionary amounts, present novel legal theories, are in the early stages of the proceedings, or are subject to appeal. Whether any losses, damages, or remedies ultimately resulting from such matters could reasonably have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including, for example, the timing and amount of such losses or damages (if any) and the structure and type of any such remedies. As of the date of these financial statements, Teladoc Health’s management does not expect any litigation matter to have a material adverse impact on its business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. On June 6, 2022, a purported securities class action complaint (Schneider v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers. The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company’s common stock during the period October 28, 2021 through April 27, 2022. The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys’ fees. On August 2, 2022, a duplicative purported securities class action complaint (De Schutter v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which was consolidated with the Schneider case in the Southern District court under the caption In re Teladoc Health, Inc. Securities Litigation. The lead plaintiff subsequently filed amended complaints that expanded the alleged class period to February 11, 2021 to July 27, 2022. On July 5, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, and on September 24, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part, and vacated in part, the Southern District court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. On March 21, 2025, the court granted the defendant's renewed motion to dismiss, and on July 25, 2025 the lead plaintiff filed an appeal of the Southern District Court’s dismissal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses, and the Company and its named officers intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On August 9, 2022, a verified shareholder derivative complaint (Vaughn v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company as a nominal defendant and certain of the Company’s officers and directors. The complaint asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets in connection with factual assertions similar to those in the purported securities class action complaints described above. The complaint seeks damages to the Company allegedly sustained as a result of the acts and omissions of the named officers and directors and seeks an order directing the Company to reform and improve the Company’s corporate governance. On September 6, 2022, a duplicative verified stockholder derivative complaint (Hendry v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The claims and parties in Hendry were substantially similar to those in Vaughn. The Vaughn and Hendry actions were consolidated under the caption In re Teladoc Stockholder Derivative Litigation, and a consolidated complaint was filed on November 29, 2022. The consolidated complaint also asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The parties subsequently stipulated to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and on December 22, 2022 the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, to stay all proceedings until final resolution, including exhaustion of appeals, of the motion to dismiss filed in the purported securities class action complaint described above. The named directors and officers have not yet responded to the complaint. On April 11, 2025, the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, to dismiss the action without prejudice. There have been multiple putative class-action lawsuits filed against the Company's subsidiary BetterHelp in connection with the consent order that BetterHelp entered into with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in July 2023. The actions have been filed in California federal and state courts and in Canada. The cases are substantially similar, involving allegations of misleading patients as to BetterHelp’s use of patient data and associated alleged violations of law involving privacy, advertising, contract, and tort. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses, and the Company intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. On February 13, 2023, Data Health Partners, Inc. (“Data Health Partners”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that certain of the Company’s products, including its blood glucose meter, infringe upon certain patents held by Data Health Partners and seeking unspecified damages, attorney’s fees and costs. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses, and the Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On May 17, 2024, a purported securities class action complaint (Stary v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former officers. The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company’s common stock during the period November 2, 2022 through February 20, 2024. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company’s advertising spend on BetterHelp. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys’ fees. On July 15, 2024, a duplicative purported securities class action complaint (Waits v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The claims and parties in Waits were substantially similar to those in Stary. The Stary and Waits actions were consolidated. On December 10, 2024, the District Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs, and, on February 24, 2025 the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that asserts Exchange Act claims for a putative class of shareholders who purchased or acquired stock between July 26, 2023 and February 20, 2024. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses, and the Company and its named officers intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously, including through the filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 20, 2025. On June 18, 2024, a verified shareholder derivative complaint (Roy v. Gorevic, et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company as a nominal defendant and certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement and abuse of control in connection with factual assertions similar to those in the purported securities class action complaint described in the preceding paragraph. The complaint seeks damages to the Company allegedly sustained as a result of the acts and omissions of the named officers and directors and seeks an order directing the Company to reform and improve the Company’s corporate governance. On October 4, 2024 the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, to stay all proceedings until any motion to dismiss filed in the purported securities class action complaint described above is granted with prejudice and any appeals therefrom are resolved, or any defendant files an answer in the purported securities class action complaint described above. On October 1, 2024, a duplicative verified stockholder derivative complaint (Brigman, et al. v. Daniel, et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The claims and parties in Brigman are substantially similar to those in Roy, and also alleges insider trading violations and misappropriation of information against certain defendants. On April 7, 2025 the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, to stay all proceedings until any motion to dismiss filed in the purported securities class action complaint described above is granted with prejudice and any appeals therefrom are resolved, or any defendant files an answer in the purported securities class action complaint described above. The named directors and officers have not yet responded to the complaint.

From time to time, Teladoc Health is involved in various litigation matters arising in the normal course of business, including the matters described below. The Company consults with legal counsel on those issues related to litigation and seeks input from other experts and advisors with respect to such matters. Estimating the probable losses or a range of probable losses resulting from litigation, government actions, and other legal proceedings is inherently difficult and requires an extensive degree of judgment, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages, may involve discretionary amounts, present novel legal theories, are in the early stages of the proceedings, or are

subject to appeal. Whether any losses, damages, or remedies ultimately resulting from such matters could reasonably have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including, for example, the timing and amount of such losses or damages (if any) and the structure and type of any such remedies. As of the date of these financial statements, Teladoc Health’s management does not expect any litigation matter to have a material adverse impact on its business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

On June 6, 2022, a purported securities class action complaint (Schneider v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers. The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company’s common stock during the period October 28, 2021 through April 27, 2022. The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys’ fees. On August 2, 2022, a duplicative purported securities class action complaint (De Schutter v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which was consolidated with the Schneider case in the Southern District court under the caption In re Teladoc Health, Inc. Securities Litigation. The lead plaintiff subsequently filed amended complaints that expanded the alleged class period to February 11, 2021 to July 27, 2022. On July 5, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, and on September 24, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part, and vacated in part, the Southern District court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. On March 21, 2025, the court granted the defendant's renewed motion to dismiss, and on July 25, 2025 the lead plaintiff filed an appeal of the Southern District Court’s dismissal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses, and the Company and its named officers intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On August 9, 2022, a verified shareholder derivative complaint (Vaughn v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company as a nominal defendant and certain of the Company’s officers and directors. The complaint asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets in connection with factual assertions similar to those in the purported securities class action complaints described above. The complaint seeks damages to the Company allegedly sustained as a result of the acts and omissions of the named officers and directors and seeks an order directing the Company to reform and improve the Company’s corporate governance. On September 6, 2022, a duplicative verified stockholder derivative complaint (Hendry v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The claims and parties in Hendry were substantially similar to those in Vaughn. The Vaughn and Hendry actions were consolidated under the caption In re Teladoc Stockholder Derivative Litigation, and a consolidated complaint was filed on November 29, 2022. The consolidated complaint also asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The parties subsequently stipulated to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and on December 22, 2022 the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, to stay all proceedings until final resolution, including exhaustion of appeals, of the motion to dismiss filed in the purported securities class action complaint described above. The named directors and officers have not yet responded to the complaint. On April 11, 2025, the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, to dismiss the action without prejudice.

There have been multiple putative class-action lawsuits filed against the Company's subsidiary BetterHelp in connection with the consent order that BetterHelp entered into with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in July 2023. The actions have been filed in California federal and state courts and in Canada. The cases are substantially similar, involving allegations of misleading patients as to BetterHelp’s use of patient data and associated alleged violations of law involving privacy, advertising, contract, and tort. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses, and the Company intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

On February 13, 2023, Data Health Partners, Inc. (“Data Health Partners”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that certain of the Company’s products, including its blood glucose meter, infringe upon certain patents held by Data Health Partners and seeking unspecified damages, attorney’s fees and costs. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses, and the Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

and former officers. The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company’s common stock during the period November 2, 2022 through February 20, 2024. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company’s advertising spend on BetterHelp. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys’ fees. On July 15, 2024, a duplicative purported securities class action complaint (Waits v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The claims and parties in Waits were substantially similar to those in Stary. The Stary and Waits actions were consolidated. On December 10, 2024, the District Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs, and, on February 24, 2025 the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that asserts Exchange Act claims for a putative class of shareholders who purchased or acquired stock between July 26, 2023 and February 20, 2024. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses, and the Company and its named officers intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously, including through the filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 20, 2025.

On June 18, 2024, a verified shareholder derivative complaint (Roy v. Gorevic, et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company as a nominal defendant and certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement and abuse of control in connection with factual assertions similar to those in the purported securities class action complaint described in the preceding paragraph. The complaint seeks damages to the Company allegedly sustained as a result of the acts and omissions of the named officers and directors and seeks an order directing the Company to reform and improve the Company’s corporate governance. On October 4, 2024 the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, to stay all proceedings until any motion to dismiss filed in the purported securities class action complaint described above is granted with prejudice and any appeals therefrom are resolved, or any defendant files an answer in the purported securities class action complaint described above. On October 1, 2024, a duplicative verified stockholder derivative complaint (Brigman, et al. v. Daniel, et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The claims and parties in Brigman are substantially similar to those in Roy, and also alleges insider trading violations and misappropriation of information against certain defendants. On April 7, 2025 the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, to stay all proceedings until any motion to dismiss filed in the purported securities class action complaint described above is granted with prejudice and any appeals therefrom are resolved, or any defendant files an answer in the purported securities class action complaint described above. The named directors and officers have not yet responded to the complaint.