Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Lease Obligations—Refer to Note 4 to the condensed consolidated financial statements for commitments related to our operating leases. Legal Contingencies and Obligations—From time to time, the Company is subject to legal proceedings and governmental inquiries in the ordinary course of business. Such matters may include insurance regulatory claims; commercial, tax, employment, or intellectual property disputes; matters relating to competition and sales practices; claims for damages arising out of the use of the Company’s services. The Company may also become subject to lawsuits related to past or future acquisitions, divestitures, or other transactions, including matters related to representations and warranties, indemnities, and assumed or retained liabilities. The Company is not currently aware of any legal proceedings or claims that it believes will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, operating results, or cash flows; however, in the event of unexpected developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of certain ongoing matters, if unfavorable, could be materially adverse to our business, prospects, financial condition, liquidity, results of operation, cash flows, or capital levels. Securities Class Actions and Stockholder Derivative Suit On August 16, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Hartel v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06903 (“the Hartel Action”) was filed against the Company and two of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts securities fraud claims on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company’s common stock between February 8, 2021 and May 11, 2021 (the “Hartel Relevant Period”). Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, allegedly causing the Company’s common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Hartel Relevant Period. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and certain other costs. On October 7, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08279 (the “WPBPPF Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, two of its executive officers, and six current or former members of the Company’s Board of Directors, along with the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering of common stock (the “Offering”). The complaint asserts claims for securities law violations on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs who purchased shares of the Company’s common stock (i) in or traceable to the Offering or (ii) between May 20, 2020 and August 25, 2021 (the “WPB Relevant Period”). Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s financial well-being and prospects, allegedly causing the Company’s common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the WPB Relevant Period. The complaint also alleges the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by making misstatements and omissions of material facts in connection with the Offering, allegedly causing a decline in the value of the Company’s common stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescission, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and certain other costs. On October 15, 2021, a motion to consolidate the Hartel Action and the WPBPPF Action was filed. On September 2, 2022, the court entered an order consolidating the Hartel and WPBPPF Actions under the caption In re SelectQuote, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-06903 (the “Securities Class Action”) and appointing the West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund and City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Fire Retirement System as lead plaintiffs. On November 19, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting similar allegations to those alleged in the Hartel and WPBPPF Actions in addition to new allegations regarding certain defendants’ purported violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also added Brookside Equity Partners LLC, one of the Company’s principal stockholders, as a defendant. On January 27, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on behalf of itself and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 5, 2023, and the Company filed its reply to plaintiffs’ opposition on May 10, 2023. On March 28, 2024, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on May 31, 2024. On July 31, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company’s motion to dismiss on October 2, 2024, and the Company filed its reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition on November 1, 2024. On April 3, 2025, the court dismissed Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 5, 2025. On August 8, 2025, plaintiffs West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund and City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Fire Retirement System (together, the “Plaintiffs-Appellants”) filed a brief in support of their appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”), and on August 13, 2025, the Second Circuit granted the parties’ joint stipulation dismissing Brookside Equity Partners LLC from the appeal. The Company and other remaining defendants-appellees (the “Defendants-Appellees”) filed their brief in response to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ brief on November 7, 2025, and Plaintiffs-Appellants submitted their reply brief on November 28, 2025. Oral argument was held on February 27, 2026. The appeal remains pending before the Second Circuit. On March 25, 2022, a stockholder derivative action captioned Jadlow v. Danker, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00391 (“the Jadlow Action”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by an alleged stockholder of the Company, purportedly on the Company’s behalf. The lawsuit was brought against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers, and against the Company, as nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. The complaint also asserts claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets based on the same general underlying conduct and seeks contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act and Section 11(f) of the Securities Act from the individual defendants named in the Securities Class Actions. The complaint seeks unspecified damages for the Company, restitution, reformation and improvement of its corporate governance and internal procedures regarding compliance with laws, and reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees. On July 25, 2022, the Jadlow action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where it was assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06290 and referred to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein as possibly related to the Hartel Action. On August 4, 2022, Judge Hellerstein accepted the Jadlow action as related to the Hartel Action and, on August 10, 2022, granted the parties’ joint stipulation to stay the Jadlow action pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action. The Jadlow action remains stayed. Other Matters On May 1, 2025, the Company became aware the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts had filed a complaint partially intervening in a qui tam action against the Company and certain of its competitors and carrier partners. The qui tam action, captioned United States ex rel. Shea v. eHealth, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-cv-11777 (the “DOJ Action”), was brought by a relator, a former employee of one of the Company’s direct competitors, and was filed and remained under seal until it was unsealed by order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dated May 1, 2025. On the same date, the Company also became aware that the relator had filed a sealed amended complaint in the qui tam action on April 29, 2025, which complaint was also unsealed by the Court’s order. The complaints allege that the Company and the other defendants named therein violated the Federal False Claims Act by engaging in various allegedly improper sales and marketing practices. The complaints seek, among other things, treble damages, civil penalties, and costs. The Company denies the allegations made in the complaints and plans to defend the suit vigorously. On August 19, 2025, the Company and co-defendants eHealth, Inc., GoHealth, Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Company (“Aetna”), Humana Inc. (“Humana”), and Elevance Health, Inc. (“Elevance”), and certain of their corporate affiliates (collectively with Aetna, Humana, and Elevance, the “Carriers”), filed a joint motion to dismiss the government’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Company, together with co-defendants eHealth, Inc. and GoHealth, Inc. (collectively, the “Brokers” and, together with the Carriers, the “Defendants”), also filed an additional motion to dismiss on separate grounds. On October 20, 2025, the government filed motions in opposition to the joint motion to dismiss and the Brokers’ separate motion to dismiss. Replies to the government’s oppositions to the joint motion and separate Brokers’ motion, respectively, were filed on December 19, 2025. On March 26, 2026, the court issued an order denying the Defendants’ motions to dismiss on all counts other than the government’s claim for unjust enrichment, which was dismissed. On August 11, 2025, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Pahlkotter v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06620 (the “Pahlkotter Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and three of its current and former executive officers. The complaint asserts claims for securities law violations relating to the allegations set forth in the DOJ Action. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescission, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and certain other costs. On August 29, 2025, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to stay the Pahlkotter Action pending the designation of a lead plaintiff and the anticipated filing of an amended complaint. Plaintiff Robert Pahlkotter was appointed lead plaintiff on November 3, 2025 and filed an amended complaint on January 16, 2026. The amended complaint asserted similar allegations to those alleged in the original complaint and added Robert Grant, the Company’s President, as an individual defendant. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Pahlkotter Action on March 17, 2026. On January 29, 2026, a stockholder derivative action captioned Roszel v. Hawks, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00801 (the “Roszel Action”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by an alleged stockholder of the Company, purportedly on the Company’s behalf. The lawsuit was brought against the Company’s directors and certain of its current and former officers, and against the Company, as nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements related to the events underlying the DOJ Action and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. The complaint also asserts claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets based on the same general underlying conduct and seeks contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act from the individual defendants named in the Pahlkotter Action. The complaint seeks unspecified damages for the Company, restitution, reformation and improvement of its corporate governance and internal procedures regarding compliance with laws, and reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees. On January 30, 2026, the action was referred to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon as possibly related to the Pahlkotter Action. On February 2, 2026, Judge Rochon accepted the Roszel Action as related to the Pahlkotter Action. On April 22, 2026, the Roszel Action was voluntarily dismissed. On March 11, 2026, two additional derivative actions, captioned Scotto v. Danker, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-1999 (the “Scotto Action”) and Kelly v. Danker, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-2000 (the “Kelly Action”), respectively, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by alleged stockholders of the Company, purportedly on the Company’s behalf. Both lawsuits were brought against the Company’s directors and certain of its current and former officers, and against the Company, as nominal defendant, and allege that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements related to the events underlying the DOJ Action and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. The complaints also assert claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets based on the same general underlying conduct and seeks contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act from the individual defendants named in the Pahlkotter Action. The complaints seek unspecified damages for the Company, restitution, reformation and improvement of its corporate governance and internal procedures regarding compliance with laws, and reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees. On March 12, 2026, the Kelly and Scotto Actions were referred to Judge Rochon as possibly related to the Pahlkotter Action, and, on March 16, 2026, were accepted as related. On April 24, 2026, the court approved the parties’ joint stipulation consolidating the Kelly and Scotto Actions and staying proceedings pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss the Pahlkotter Action. The Company currently believes that none of the above matters will have a material adverse effect on its operations, financial condition or liquidity; however, depending on how the matters progress, they could be costly to defend and could divert the attention of management and other resources from operations. The Company has not concluded that a loss related to these matters is probable and, therefore, has not accrued a liability related to any of these matters.

Legal Contingencies and Obligations—From time to time, the Company is subject to legal proceedings and governmental inquiries in the ordinary course of business. Such matters may include insurance regulatory claims; commercial, tax, employment, or intellectual property disputes; matters relating to competition and sales practices; claims for damages arising out of the use of the Company’s services. The Company may also become subject to lawsuits related to past or future acquisitions, divestitures, or other transactions, including matters related to representations and warranties, indemnities, and assumed or retained liabilities. The Company is not currently aware of any legal proceedings or claims that it believes will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, operating results, or cash flows; however, in the event of unexpected developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of certain ongoing matters, if unfavorable, could be materially adverse to our business, prospects, financial condition, liquidity, results of operation, cash flows, or capital levels.

On August 16, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Hartel v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06903 (“the Hartel Action”) was filed against the Company and two of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts securities fraud claims on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company’s common stock between February 8, 2021 and May 11, 2021 (the “Hartel Relevant Period”). Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, allegedly causing the Company’s common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Hartel

On October 7, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08279 (the “WPBPPF Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, two of its executive officers, and six current or former members of the Company’s Board of Directors, along with the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering of common stock (the “Offering”). The complaint asserts claims for securities law violations on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs who purchased shares of the Company’s common stock (i) in or traceable to the Offering or (ii) between May 20, 2020 and August 25, 2021 (the “WPB Relevant Period”). Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s financial well-being and prospects, allegedly causing the Company’s common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the WPB Relevant Period. The complaint also alleges the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by making misstatements and omissions of material facts in connection with the Offering, allegedly causing a decline in the value of the Company’s common stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescission, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and certain other costs.

On October 15, 2021, a motion to consolidate the Hartel Action and the WPBPPF Action was filed. On September 2, 2022, the court entered an order consolidating the Hartel and WPBPPF Actions under the caption In re SelectQuote, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-06903 (the “Securities Class Action”) and appointing the West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund and City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Fire Retirement System as lead plaintiffs. On November 19, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting similar allegations to those alleged in the Hartel and WPBPPF Actions in addition to new allegations regarding certain defendants’ purported violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also added Brookside Equity Partners LLC, one of the Company’s principal stockholders, as a defendant. On January 27, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on behalf of itself and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 5, 2023, and the Company filed its reply to plaintiffs’ opposition on May 10, 2023. On March 28, 2024, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on May 31, 2024. On July 31, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company’s motion to dismiss on October 2, 2024, and the Company filed its reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition on November 1, 2024. On April 3, 2025, the court dismissed Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 5, 2025. On August 8, 2025, plaintiffs West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund and City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Fire Retirement System (together, the “Plaintiffs-Appellants”) filed a brief in support of their appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”), and on August 13, 2025, the Second Circuit granted the parties’ joint stipulation dismissing Brookside Equity Partners LLC from the appeal. The Company and other remaining defendants-appellees (the “Defendants-Appellees”) filed their brief in response to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ brief on November 7, 2025, and Plaintiffs-Appellants submitted their reply brief on November 28, 2025. Oral argument was held on February 27, 2026. The appeal remains pending before the Second Circuit.

On March 25, 2022, a stockholder derivative action captioned Jadlow v. Danker, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00391 (“the Jadlow Action”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by an alleged stockholder of the Company, purportedly on the Company’s behalf. The lawsuit was brought against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers, and against the Company, as nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. The complaint also asserts claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets based on the same general underlying conduct and seeks contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act and Section 11(f) of the Securities Act from the individual defendants named in the Securities Class Actions. The complaint seeks unspecified damages for the Company, restitution, reformation and improvement of its corporate governance and internal procedures regarding compliance with laws, and reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees. On July 25, 2022, the Jadlow action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where it

On May 1, 2025, the Company became aware the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts had filed a complaint partially intervening in a qui tam action against the Company and certain of its competitors and carrier partners. The qui tam action, captioned United States ex rel. Shea v. eHealth, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-cv-11777 (the “DOJ Action”), was brought by a relator, a former employee of one of the Company’s direct competitors, and was filed and remained under seal until it was unsealed by order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dated May 1, 2025. On the same date, the Company also became aware that the relator had filed a sealed amended complaint in the qui tam action on April 29, 2025, which complaint was also unsealed by the Court’s order. The complaints allege that the Company and the other defendants named therein violated the Federal False Claims Act by engaging in various allegedly improper sales and marketing practices. The complaints seek, among other things, treble damages, civil penalties, and costs. The Company denies the allegations made in the complaints and plans to defend the suit vigorously.

On August 19, 2025, the Company and co-defendants eHealth, Inc., GoHealth, Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Company (“Aetna”), Humana Inc. (“Humana”), and Elevance Health, Inc. (“Elevance”), and certain of their corporate affiliates (collectively with Aetna, Humana, and Elevance, the “Carriers”), filed a joint motion to dismiss the government’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Company, together with co-defendants eHealth, Inc. and GoHealth, Inc. (collectively, the “Brokers” and, together with the Carriers, the “Defendants”), also filed an additional motion to dismiss on separate grounds. On October 20, 2025, the government filed motions in opposition to the joint motion to dismiss and the Brokers’ separate motion to dismiss. Replies to the government’s oppositions to the joint motion and separate Brokers’ motion, respectively, were filed on December 19, 2025. On March 26, 2026, the court issued an order denying the Defendants’ motions to dismiss on all counts other than the government’s claim for unjust enrichment, which was dismissed.

On August 11, 2025, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Pahlkotter v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06620 (the “Pahlkotter Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and three of its current and former executive officers. The complaint asserts claims for securities law violations relating to the allegations set forth in the DOJ Action. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescission, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and certain other costs. On August 29, 2025, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to stay the Pahlkotter Action pending the designation of a lead plaintiff and the anticipated filing of an amended complaint. Plaintiff Robert Pahlkotter was appointed lead plaintiff on November 3, 2025 and filed an amended complaint on January 16, 2026. The amended complaint asserted similar allegations to those alleged in the original complaint and added Robert Grant, the Company’s President, as an individual defendant. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Pahlkotter Action on March 17, 2026.

On January 29, 2026, a stockholder derivative action captioned Roszel v. Hawks, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00801 (the “Roszel Action”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by an alleged stockholder of the Company, purportedly on the Company’s behalf. The lawsuit was brought against the Company’s directors and certain of its current and former officers, and against the Company, as nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements related to the events underlying the DOJ Action and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. The complaint also asserts claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets based on the same general underlying conduct and seeks contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act from the individual defendants named in the Pahlkotter Action. The complaint seeks unspecified damages for the Company, restitution, reformation and improvement of its corporate governance and internal procedures regarding compliance with laws, and reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees. On January 30, 2026, the action was referred to Judge Jennifer L.

On March 11, 2026, two additional derivative actions, captioned Scotto v. Danker, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-1999 (the “Scotto Action”) and Kelly v. Danker, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-2000 (the “Kelly Action”), respectively, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by alleged stockholders of the Company, purportedly on the Company’s behalf. Both lawsuits were brought against the Company’s directors and certain of its current and former officers, and against the Company, as nominal defendant, and allege that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements related to the events underlying the DOJ Action and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. The complaints also assert claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets based on the same general underlying conduct and seeks contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act from the individual defendants named in the Pahlkotter Action. The complaints seek unspecified damages for the Company, restitution, reformation and improvement of its corporate governance and internal procedures regarding compliance with laws, and reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees. On March 12, 2026, the Kelly and Scotto Actions were referred to Judge Rochon as possibly related to the Pahlkotter Action, and, on March 16, 2026, were accepted as related. On April 24, 2026, the court approved the parties’ joint stipulation consolidating the Kelly and Scotto Actions and staying proceedings pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss the Pahlkotter Action.