Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation During the ordinary course of the Company’s business, it is subject to various claims and litigation. Management believes that the outcome of such claims or litigation will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flow. On October 17, 2024, a putative shareholder class action complaint, captioned Seret Ishak v. WM Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08959 (the “Securities Class Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, naming the Company and certain former and current officers and/or directors of the Company and Silver Spike as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to historical public reporting of MAUs in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class action is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities between May 25, 2021, and September 24, 2024, inclusive, and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. On May 12, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On July 11, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended class action complaint. On February 12, 2026, the parties filed a notice of settlement stating that they had reached an agreement in principle to fully settle all pending claims in the action and requesting the court to not rule on the pending motions to dismiss as they were now moot. On February 13, 2026, the court denied as moot the motions to dismiss and ordered lead plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by April 13, 2026. The settlement remains subject to approval by the court and certain other conditions and contingencies out of our control. There can be no guarantee that all of these conditions and contingencies will occur. Should a material condition or contingency to the settlement fail to occur, one or both of the parties to the settlement may exercise their right to terminate the settlement agreement. The Company recorded an accrued liability of $2.8 million related to this preliminary settlement agreement, representing management's reasonable estimate of its settlement obligation. This liability is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses as of December 31, 2025 in the consolidated balance sheets, with the corresponding expense recognized for the year ended December 31, 2025 in general and administrative expense in the consolidated statement of operations. On November 8, 2024, a shareholder derivative action, captioned DeGennaro v. Francis, et. al, Case No. 8:24-cv-02454 (the “DeGennaro Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against certain members of the Company’s board of directors and certain former and current officers. The plaintiff purports to bring the action derivatively on behalf of the Company, and the Company is a nominal defendant in the action. The derivative complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants authorized or permitted materially false statements and/or material omissions of fact relating to historical public reporting of MAUs. The derivative complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The derivative complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the Company, disgorgement or restitution, corporate governance reforms, declaratory relief, and an award of costs and expenses to the derivative plaintiff, including attorneys’ fees. Further, on November 18, 2024, a shareholder derivative action, captioned Pearson v. Francis, et. al, Case No. 8:24-cv-02525 (the “Pearson Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against certain former and current members of the Company’s board of directors and certain former and current officers. The derivative complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants authorized or permitted materially false statements and/or material omissions of fact relating to historical public reporting of MAUs and corporate governance matters. The derivative complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. The derivative complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the Company, restitution, corporate governance reforms, declaratory relief, and an award of costs and expenses to the derivative plaintiff, including attorneys’ fees. On December 10, 2024, the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California issued an order consolidating the DeGennaro Action and the Pearson Action (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). On October 3, 2025, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action until resolution of the motions to dismiss the Securities Class Action discussed above. On February 17, 2026, in light of the notice of settlement in the Securities Class Action and the denial of the motions to dismiss as moot, the court ordered the parties to show cause regarding the continued stay of the Consolidated Derivative Action. On February 25, 2026, the court extended the stay to April 10, 2026 to provide the parties additional time to discuss a potential resolution to the Consolidated Derivative Action, pursuant to a court-entered stipulation by the parties. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation. SEC Matter In the second quarter of 2022, the Company’s board of directors received an internal complaint regarding the calculation, definition and reporting of the Company’s monthly active users (“MAUs”) metric. In response, the Company’s board of directors formed a special committee of independent directors to conduct an internal investigation with the assistance of outside counsel. As a result of the findings of that internal investigation, the Company provided certain additional information regarding the growth and nature of the Company’s previously-reported MAUs in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2022 filed with the SEC on August 9, 2022. This investigation found no impact on the Company’s financial results under GAAP or the reporting or disclosure of any currently disclosed non-GAAP financial metric. As also previously reported, in the third quarter of 2022, the Company determined not to report MAUs going forward. In August 2022, the Company’s board of directors determined to voluntarily report the internal complaint and subsequent internal investigation to the SEC, following which the SEC’s Division of Enforcement commenced an investigation. As also previously reported in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 25, 2024, on July 22, 2024, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the SEC staff to resolve the SEC’s investigation with respect to the Company. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company consented, without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, to the entry of an administrative cease-and-desist order finding violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Sections 13(a) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, and 14a-9 thereunder, and pay a civil money penalty of $1.5 million. The settlement was approved by the SEC, and the administrative cease-and-desist order was entered in September 2024. The Company issued payment to the SEC, and it was received by the SEC, in October 2024. Accordingly, the SEC enforcement matter is concluded with respect to the Company. Purchase Obligations The Company’s purchase obligations consist of agreements to purchase goods and services entered into in the ordinary course of business. The Company has non-cancelable purchase obligation agreements primarily relating to contracts with vendors in connection with Information Technology (“IT”) infrastructure and cloud computing services. The Company has minimum outstanding purchase obligations of $7.5 million in 2026 due under software license agreement related to the remaining period of the three-year AWS Enterprise agreement. The Company has an obligation to pay the shortfall if it does not meet the specified minimum purchase obligations. During the year ended December 31, 2025, the Company performed a review of its cloud infrastructure strategy prompted by a downward revision in forecasted server cost spend for the full fiscal year 2025 and 2026. The lower spend identified was attributable to server management optimization and efficiencies implemented during 2024 and 2025 and discounts received on prepayments under the AWS agreement. Due to the revised forecast, the Company identified a probable shortfall in the minimum purchase obligation of approximately $2.3 million. Under ASC 450 – Contingencies, the Company evaluated whether a loss contingency should be recognized for non-cancellable commitments that will not provide future economic benefits. The Company determined that the unused portion of the AWS minimum commitment obligation is not probable of being recovered through usage or other means, and as such recorded a loss contingency of $2.3 million in the year ended December 31, 2025, which is included in general and administrative expense in the consolidated statement of operations. As of December 31, 2025, the Company recorded amounts due to AWS of $2.3 million which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in these consolidated balance sheet.

On October 17, 2024, a putative shareholder class action complaint, captioned Seret Ishak v. WM Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08959 (the “Securities Class Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, naming the Company and certain former and current officers and/or directors of the Company and Silver Spike as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to historical public reporting of MAUs in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class action is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities between May 25, 2021, and September 24, 2024, inclusive, and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. On May 12, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On July 11, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended class action complaint. On February 12, 2026, the parties filed a notice of settlement stating that they had reached an agreement in principle to fully settle all pending claims in the action and requesting the court to not rule on the pending motions to dismiss as they were now moot. On February 13, 2026, the court denied as moot the motions to dismiss and ordered lead plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by April 13, 2026. The settlement remains subject to approval by the court and certain other conditions and contingencies out of our control. There can be no guarantee that all of these conditions and contingencies will occur. Should a material condition or contingency to the settlement fail to occur, one or both of the parties to the settlement may exercise their right to terminate the settlement agreement. The Company recorded an accrued liability of $2.8 million related to this preliminary settlement agreement, representing management's reasonable estimate of its settlement obligation. This liability is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses as of December 31, 2025 in the consolidated balance sheets, with the corresponding expense recognized for the year ended December 31, 2025 in general and administrative expense in the consolidated statement of operations.

On November 8, 2024, a shareholder derivative action, captioned DeGennaro v. Francis, et. al, Case No. 8:24-cv-02454 (the “DeGennaro Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against certain members of the Company’s board of directors and certain former and current officers. The plaintiff purports to bring the action derivatively on behalf of the Company, and the Company is a nominal defendant in the action. The derivative complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants authorized or permitted materially false statements and/or material omissions of fact relating to historical public reporting of MAUs. The derivative complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The derivative complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the Company, disgorgement or

Further, on November 18, 2024, a shareholder derivative action, captioned Pearson v. Francis, et. al, Case No. 8:24-cv-02525 (the “Pearson Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against certain former and current members of the Company’s board of directors and certain former and current officers. The derivative complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants authorized or permitted materially false statements and/or material omissions of fact relating to historical public reporting of MAUs and corporate governance matters. The derivative complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. The derivative complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the Company, restitution, corporate governance reforms, declaratory relief, and an award of costs and expenses to the derivative plaintiff, including attorneys’ fees. On December 10, 2024, the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California issued an order consolidating the DeGennaro Action and the Pearson Action (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). On October 3, 2025, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action until resolution of the motions to dismiss the Securities Class Action discussed above. On February 17, 2026, in light of the notice of settlement in the Securities Class Action and the denial of the motions to dismiss as moot, the court ordered the parties to show cause regarding the continued stay of the Consolidated Derivative Action. On February 25, 2026, the court extended the stay to April 10, 2026 to provide the parties additional time to discuss a potential resolution to the Consolidated Derivative Action, pursuant to a court-entered stipulation by the parties. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation.

In the second quarter of 2022, the Company’s board of directors received an internal complaint regarding the calculation, definition and reporting of the Company’s monthly active users (“MAUs”) metric. In response, the Company’s board of directors formed a special committee of independent directors to conduct an internal investigation with the assistance of outside counsel. As a result of the findings of that internal investigation, the Company provided certain additional information regarding the growth and nature of the Company’s previously-reported MAUs in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2022 filed with the SEC on August 9, 2022. This investigation found no impact on the Company’s financial results under GAAP or the reporting or disclosure of any currently disclosed non-GAAP financial metric. As also previously reported, in the third quarter of 2022, the Company determined not to report MAUs going forward. In August 2022, the Company’s board of directors determined to voluntarily report the internal complaint and subsequent internal investigation to the SEC, following which the SEC’s Division of Enforcement commenced an investigation.

As also previously reported in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 25, 2024, on July 22, 2024, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the SEC staff to resolve the SEC’s investigation with respect to the Company. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company consented, without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, to the entry of an administrative cease-and-desist order finding violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Sections 13(a) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, and 14a-9 thereunder, and pay a civil money penalty of $1.5 million. The settlement was approved by the SEC, and the administrative cease-and-desist order was entered in September 2024. The Company issued payment to the SEC, and it was received by the SEC, in October 2024. Accordingly, the SEC enforcement matter is concluded with respect to the Company.

The Company has minimum outstanding purchase obligations of $7.5 million in 2026 due under software license agreement related to the remaining period of the three-year AWS Enterprise agreement. The Company has an obligation to pay the shortfall if it does not meet the specified minimum purchase obligations. During the year ended December 31, 2025, the Company performed a review of its cloud infrastructure strategy prompted by a downward revision in forecasted server cost spend for the full fiscal year 2025 and 2026. The lower spend identified was attributable to server management optimization and efficiencies implemented during 2024 and 2025 and discounts received on prepayments under the AWS agreement. Due to