Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company may be involved as a defendant in legal actions that arise in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the Company has adequate legal defense on all legal actions, and the results of any such proceedings would not materially impact the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company. The Company provides disclosure and records loss contingencies in accordance with the loss contingencies accounting guidance. In accordance with such guidance, the Company establishes accruals for such matters when potential losses become probable and can be reasonably estimated. If the Company determines that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, the Company discloses the possible loss in the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. California Labor Actions On March 30, 2023, Paul Lowe v. Rapid Reliable Testing, LLC, et al. was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court (the “Lowe Action”). The complaint alleges various wage and hour claims on behalf of the plaintiff and a putative class. The complaint also alleges a derivative class claim for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and seeks to bring a representative action pursuant to California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). In addition, Corielyn Marie Hall v. Rapid Reliable Testing, LLC, et al. involves two separate actions filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court by plaintiff Corielyn Hall (collectively with the Lowe Action, the “California Labor Actions”). The first action is a class complaint filed on December 14, 2023. Similar to the Lowe Action, it alleges various wage and hour claims on behalf of the plaintiff and a putative class and asserts a derivative class claim for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The second action brought by Corielyn Hall was filed on February 20, 2024 and brings claims under PAGA. Given the overlapping claims and time periods presented in the California Labor Actions, in an effort to reach a global resolution, these actions were mediated concurrently on February 5, 2025. The parties reached a resolution, in principle, at the mediation for a settlement amount of $220,000. Thereafter, the parties executed the settlement documents memorializing that resolution, and a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed. The hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was held on February 6, 2026, at which the court ordered that the parties revise minor terms in the settlement agreement and file supplemental papers. The hearing on the motional for final approval of the settlement is scheduled for August 3, 2026. Stockholder Actions On October 27, 2023, Joe Naclerio, individually and purportedly on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its then-Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer, another former Chief Executive Officer, current Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Financial Officer (who currently serves as Executive Vice President of Strategy). On January 17, 2024, the Court appointed the Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System as the Lead Plaintiff. On March 18, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company, its now former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, another former Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer (who currently serves as Executive Vice President of Strategy). On June 21, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 28, 2025, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. On April 25, 2025, the remaining defendants answered the complaint. The parties reached an agreement to settle the action for an amount of $12,500,000 (covered by the Company’s insurance policy, subject to retention), and on March 24, 2026, the court approved the settlement. On May 13, 2025 and June 3, 2025, respectively, two derivative actions were filed nominally on behalf of the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Ryne Shetterly and Salma Daboul against certain current and former members of the Board of Directors, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel, along with two former Chief Executive Officers, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and its Executive Vice President of Strategy. Both complaints assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and other related claims purportedly on behalf of the Company based on substantially similar factual allegations to those asserted in the securities class action matter discussed above, seeking various forms of monetary and injunctive relief. On August 5, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the two derivative actions, and the parties agreed that the complaint filed in the Daboul action should serve as the operative complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action in October 2025, and rather than oppose, plaintiffs amended their complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on February 2, 2026, and their motion is fully briefed. Due to the early stage of these proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any. On August 19, 2025, Jung Jae Hyung filed another derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts claims similar to those asserted in the consolidated action pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery and seeks relief similar to the relief sought in the consolidated action. He further alleges that he previously made a demand on the Board to assert his claims and the Board ignored it, which he deemed a refusal. The Company’s counsel informed Mr. Hyung’s counsel that the Board had appointed a committee to review his litigation demand, and the parties thereafter agreed pursuant to a stipulation entered on October 20, 2025 to stay the Hyung action while the review proceeds. Due to the early stage of these proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims. Cybersecurity Action On August 22, 2024, Maria Ballesteros, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a complaint against Ambulnz NY, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company (“Ambulnz NY”), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York arising from a data security incident that the Company experienced in April 2024 (the “Cybersecurity Action”). The Cybersecurity Action alleged negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, the California Privacy Act and the California Consumer Records Act, and sought various forms of monetary and injunctive relief. Before Ambulnz NY responded to the complaint, the parties engaged in early mediation that resulted in a settlement in principle. The plaintiff subsequently dismissed the case from the Southern District of New York without prejudice to provide the parties time to finalize the settlement and for eventual re-filing in Florida state court. The parties thereafter entered into a formal settlement agreement, and the plaintiff re-filed the case in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida on March 21, 2025. The plaintiff also filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on March 24, 2025. On May 2, 2025, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the parties’ settlement agreement, directing notice to the settlement class and scheduling a final fairness hearing for August 22, 2025. The settlement class members then had a period of time to file a claim for the benefits under the settlement. The final fairness hearing took place as scheduled on August 22, 2025, and the court entered an order finally approving the settlement and dismissing the action. The settlement was on a claims-made basis, and the cost of the Cybersecurity Action settlement, including all allowed claims filed by settlement class members, plaintiff attorneys’ fees, plaintiff services awards, and the cost of administration, has been calculated to be $337,198. Such amount is covered by the Company’s cybersecurity insurance.

From time to time, the Company may be involved as a defendant in legal actions that arise in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the Company has adequate legal defense on all legal actions, and the results of any such proceedings would not materially impact the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company. The Company provides disclosure and records loss contingencies in accordance with the loss contingencies accounting guidance. In accordance with such guidance, the Company establishes accruals for such matters when potential

On March 30, 2023, Paul Lowe v. Rapid Reliable Testing, LLC, et al. was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court (the “Lowe Action”). The complaint alleges various wage and hour claims on behalf of the plaintiff and a putative class. The complaint also alleges a derivative class claim for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and seeks to bring a representative action pursuant to California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”).

In addition, Corielyn Marie Hall v. Rapid Reliable Testing, LLC, et al. involves two separate actions filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court by plaintiff Corielyn Hall (collectively with the Lowe Action, the “California Labor Actions”). The first action is a class complaint filed on December 14, 2023. Similar to the Lowe Action, it alleges various wage and hour claims on behalf of the plaintiff and a putative class and asserts a derivative class claim for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The second action brought by Corielyn Hall was filed on February 20, 2024 and brings claims under PAGA.

Given the overlapping claims and time periods presented in the California Labor Actions, in an effort to reach a global resolution, these actions were mediated concurrently on February 5, 2025. The parties reached a resolution, in principle, at the mediation for a settlement amount of $220,000. Thereafter, the parties executed the settlement documents memorializing that resolution, and a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed.

The hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was held on February 6, 2026, at which the court ordered that the parties revise minor terms in the settlement agreement and file supplemental papers. The hearing on the motional for final approval of the settlement is scheduled for August 3, 2026.

On October 27, 2023, Joe Naclerio, individually and purportedly on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its then-Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer, another former Chief Executive Officer, current Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Financial Officer (who currently serves as Executive Vice President of Strategy). On January 17, 2024, the Court appointed the Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System as the Lead Plaintiff. On March 18, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company, its now former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, another former Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer (who currently serves as Executive Vice President of Strategy). On June 21, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 28, 2025, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. On April 25, 2025, the remaining defendants answered the complaint. The parties reached an agreement to settle the action for an amount of $12,500,000 (covered by the Company’s insurance policy, subject to retention), and on March 24, 2026, the court approved the settlement.

On May 13, 2025 and June 3, 2025, respectively, two derivative actions were filed nominally on behalf of the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Ryne Shetterly and Salma Daboul against certain current and former members of the Board of Directors, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel, along with two former Chief Executive Officers, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and its Executive Vice President of Strategy. Both complaints assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and other related claims purportedly on behalf of the Company based on substantially similar factual allegations to those asserted in the securities class action matter discussed above, seeking various forms of monetary and injunctive relief. On August 5, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the two derivative actions, and the parties agreed that the complaint filed in the Daboul action should serve as the operative complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action in October 2025, and rather than oppose, plaintiffs amended their complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on February 2, 2026, and their motion is fully briefed. Due to the early stage of these proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any.

Delaware Court of Chancery and seeks relief similar to the relief sought in the consolidated action. He further alleges that he previously made a demand on the Board to assert his claims and the Board ignored it, which he deemed a refusal. The Company’s counsel informed Mr. Hyung’s counsel that the Board had appointed a committee to review his litigation demand, and the parties thereafter agreed pursuant to a stipulation entered on October 20, 2025 to stay the Hyung action while the review proceeds. Due to the early stage of these proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims.

On August 22, 2024, Maria Ballesteros, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a complaint against Ambulnz NY, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company (“Ambulnz NY”), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York arising from a data security incident that the Company experienced in April 2024 (the “Cybersecurity Action”). The Cybersecurity Action alleged negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, the California Privacy Act and the California Consumer Records Act, and sought various forms of monetary and injunctive relief. Before Ambulnz NY responded to the complaint, the parties engaged in early mediation that resulted in a settlement in principle. The plaintiff subsequently dismissed the case from the Southern District of New York without prejudice to provide the parties time to finalize the settlement and for eventual re-filing in Florida state court. The parties thereafter entered into a formal settlement agreement, and the plaintiff re-filed the case in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida on March 21, 2025. The plaintiff also filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on March 24, 2025.

On May 2, 2025, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the parties’ settlement agreement, directing notice to the settlement class and scheduling a final fairness hearing for August 22, 2025. The settlement class members then had a period of time to file a claim for the benefits under the settlement. The final fairness hearing took place as scheduled on August 22, 2025, and the court entered an order finally approving the settlement and dismissing the action. The settlement was on a claims-made basis, and the cost of the Cybersecurity Action settlement, including all allowed claims filed by settlement class members, plaintiff attorneys’ fees, plaintiff services awards, and the cost of administration, has been calculated to be $337,198. Such amount is covered by the Company’s cybersecurity insurance.