Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation, fines, and penalties and other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If we determine that a loss is reasonably possible, and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, we will disclose the possible loss in the notes to our financial statements. Accounting for contingencies requires us to use judgment related to both the likelihood of a loss and the estimate of the amount or range of loss. Legal costs incurred in connection with loss contingencies are expensed as incurred. On September 26, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims under the federal securities laws against us and certain of our executive officers (the “Securities Class Action”). On January 16, 2024, the parties reached an agreement to settle the Securities Class Action, and lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. In connection with the agreement, we recorded an expense of $9.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2023 for the anticipated settlement, which was recorded in general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of operations. We maintain insurance coverage for a portion of the settlement and legal and consulting fees, but we do not record anticipated insurance proceeds until we have determined that recovery of the expected amount is probable. During the six months ended June 30, 2024, we recorded $10.6 million in recoveries which became probable under our insurance coverage and was recorded within general and administrative expenses. The Court granted final approval of the full settlement amount on June 11, 2024. On March 18, 2025, the Court entered a class distribution order governing the final distribution of the settlement funds. On May 4, 2023, Cashondra Floyd, an alleged Olo stockholder, derivatively and on behalf of us as a nominal defendant, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Floyd v. Glass, et al. (Case No. 1:23-cv-03770) against certain of our directors and officers based on substantially similar allegations as in the now-settled class action lawsuit asserting claims under the federal securities laws against us and certain of our executive officers (the “Securities Class Action”). On May 25, 2023, the plaintiff voluntary dismissed her complaint and refiled in the Court of the Chancery of the State of Delaware (C.A. No. 2023-0560-KSJM) (the “Floyd Derivative Complaint”). On November 16, 2023, Alexander A. Balleh and Neil Ahearne, alleged Olo stockholders, derivatively and on behalf of us as a nominal defendant, filed a complaint in the Court of the Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Balleh v. Glass, et al. (C.A. No. 2023-1165-KSJM) (the “Balleh Derivative Complaint”) against certain of our directors and officers also based on substantially similar allegations as in the Securities Class Action. On January 11, 2024, J. Brandon Giuda and Katrina Giuda, alleged Olo stockholders, derivatively and on behalf of us as a nominal defendant, filed a complaint in the Court of the Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Giuda v. Glass, et al. (C.A. No. 2024-0025-KSJM) (the “Giuda Derivative Complaint”) against certain of our directors and officers also based on substantially similar allegations as in the Securities Class Action. On November 13, 2024, the Court consolidated the Floyd Derivative Complaint, the Balleh Derivative Complaint, and the Giuda Derivative Complaint into a single action (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). On December 2, 2024, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative Action designated an operative complaint (the “Consolidated Derivative Complaint”) against certain of our directors and officers (the “Derivative Defendants”). The Consolidated Derivative Complaint alleges that, beginning in approximately March 2021 through at least November 2023, the Derivative Defendants caused our alleged issuance of materially false and misleading statements concerning our business relationship with the restaurant brand Subway and our publicly disclosed “active locations” counts. The Consolidated Derivative Complaint asserts a single claim for breaches of fiduciary duty against the Derivative Defendants. The Consolidated Derivative Complaint seeks a judgment against the Derivative Defendants in favor of us for the amount of damages sustained by us as a result of the Derivative Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties; directing us to take all necessary actions to reform and improve our corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect us and our shareholders from a repeat of the damaging events alleged in the Consolidated Derivative Complaint; awarding us restitution from the Derivative Defendants and ordering disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the Derivative Defendants; awarding plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs and expenses; and granting such other relief that the Court deems just and proper. On January 16, 2025, the Derivative Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Derivative Complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 3, 2025, and the Derivative Defendants filed a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss on April 1, 2025. In July 2025, the Court vacated the hearing date for the motion to dismiss that was previously scheduled for September 16, 2025. A new date has not been scheduled. We have also received, and may in the future continue to receive, other claims from third parties asserting, among other things, infringement of their intellectual property rights. Future litigation may be necessary to defend ourselves or our customers by determining the scope, enforceability, and validity of third-party proprietary rights or to establish our proprietary rights. Defending such proceedings is costly and can impose a significant burden on management and employees. The results of any current or future litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, and regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors. Non-cancelable Purchase Commitments During the six months ended June 30, 2025, there were no material changes to the Company’s non-cancelable purchase commitments disclosed in the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 25, 2025. Leases There was no sublease income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2025. Sublease income was $0.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2024. During the six months ended June 30, 2024, the subtenant of our corporate headquarters at One World Trade Center surrendered the premises back to us, and in connection with this, we recorded a lease termination benefit of $1.4 million within general and administrative expenses.

Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation, fines, and penalties and other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If we determine that a loss is reasonably possible, and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, we will disclose the possible loss in the notes to our financial statements. Accounting for contingencies requires us to use judgment related to both the likelihood of a loss and the estimate of the amount or range of loss. Legal costs incurred in connection with loss contingencies are expensed as incurred.

On September 26, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims under the federal securities laws against us and certain of our executive officers (the “Securities Class Action”). On January 16, 2024, the parties reached an agreement to settle the Securities Class Action, and lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. In connection with the agreement, we recorded an expense of $9.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2023 for the anticipated settlement, which was recorded in general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of operations. We maintain insurance coverage for a portion of the settlement and legal and consulting fees, but we do not record anticipated insurance proceeds until we have determined that recovery of the expected amount is probable. During the six months ended June 30, 2024, we recorded $10.6 million in recoveries which became probable under our insurance coverage and was recorded within general and administrative expenses. The Court granted final approval of the full settlement amount on June 11, 2024. On March 18, 2025, the Court entered a class distribution order governing the final distribution of the settlement funds.

On May 4, 2023, Cashondra Floyd, an alleged Olo stockholder, derivatively and on behalf of us as a nominal defendant, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Floyd v. Glass, et al. (Case No. 1:23-cv-03770) against certain of our directors and officers based on substantially similar allegations as in the now-settled class action lawsuit asserting claims under the federal securities laws against us and certain of our executive officers (the “Securities Class Action”). On May 25, 2023, the plaintiff voluntary dismissed her complaint and refiled in the Court of the Chancery of the State of Delaware (C.A. No. 2023-0560-KSJM) (the “Floyd Derivative Complaint”).

On November 16, 2023, Alexander A. Balleh and Neil Ahearne, alleged Olo stockholders, derivatively and on behalf of us as a nominal defendant, filed a complaint in the Court of the Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Balleh v. Glass, et al. (C.A. No. 2023-1165-KSJM) (the “Balleh Derivative Complaint”) against certain of our directors and officers also based on substantially similar allegations as in the Securities Class Action.

On January 11, 2024, J. Brandon Giuda and Katrina Giuda, alleged Olo stockholders, derivatively and on behalf of us as a nominal defendant, filed a complaint in the Court of the Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Giuda v. Glass, et al. (C.A. No. 2024-0025-KSJM) (the “Giuda Derivative Complaint”) against certain of our directors and officers also based on substantially similar allegations as in the Securities Class Action.

On November 13, 2024, the Court consolidated the Floyd Derivative Complaint, the Balleh Derivative Complaint, and the Giuda Derivative Complaint into a single action (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). On December 2, 2024, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative Action designated an operative complaint (the “Consolidated Derivative Complaint”) against certain of our directors and officers (the “Derivative Defendants”). The Consolidated Derivative Complaint alleges that, beginning in approximately March 2021 through at least November 2023, the Derivative Defendants caused our alleged issuance of materially false and misleading statements concerning our business relationship with the restaurant brand Subway and our publicly disclosed “active locations” counts. The Consolidated Derivative Complaint asserts a single claim for breaches of fiduciary duty against the Derivative Defendants. The Consolidated Derivative Complaint seeks a judgment against the Derivative Defendants in favor of us for the amount of damages sustained by us as a result of the Derivative Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties; directing us to take all necessary actions to reform and improve our corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect us and our shareholders from a repeat of the damaging events alleged in the Consolidated Derivative Complaint; awarding us restitution from the Derivative Defendants and ordering

disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the Derivative Defendants; awarding plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs and expenses; and granting such other relief that the Court deems just and proper. On January 16, 2025, the Derivative Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Derivative Complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 3, 2025, and the Derivative Defendants filed a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss on April 1, 2025. In July 2025, the Court vacated the hearing date for the motion to dismiss that was previously scheduled for September 16, 2025. A new date has not been scheduled.

We have also received, and may in the future continue to receive, other claims from third parties asserting, among other things, infringement of their intellectual property rights. Future litigation may be necessary to defend ourselves or our customers by determining the scope, enforceability, and validity of third-party proprietary rights or to establish our proprietary rights. Defending such proceedings is costly and can impose a significant burden on management and employees. The results of any current or future litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, and regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors.

There was no sublease income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2025. Sublease income was $0.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2024. During the six months ended June 30, 2024, the subtenant of our corporate headquarters at One World Trade Center surrendered the premises back to us, and in connection with this, we recorded a lease termination benefit of $1.4 million within general and administrative expenses.