Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Aside from the below, as of June 30, 2026, there were no material changes to our commitments and contingencies as disclosed in the notes to our consolidated financial statements included in our 2025 10-K. Legal Contingencies Consumer privacy class action - Between February 2, 2023, and March 30, 2023, five individual plaintiffs filed five separate putative class action lawsuits against Google, Meta, Criteo and us, alleging generally that we have not adequately protected consumer privacy and that we communicated consumer information to third parties, including the three co- defendants. Four of the plaintiffs allege common law intrusion upon seclusion and unjust enrichment claims, as well as claims under California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Invasion of Privacy Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. One of these four plaintiffs additionally brings a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The fifth plaintiff brings claims for common-law unjust enrichment and violations of New York’s General Business Law. Four of these cases were originally filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("NDCA") (Cases No. 3:23-cv-00501; 3:23-cv-00744; 3:23-cv-00940; and 4:23-cv-01293). One case was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:23-cv-00943); however, that case was voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in the NDCA (Case No. 3:23-cv-01508). These five matters have been consolidated and assigned to U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in the NDCA. The court also set a briefing schedule for filing a single consolidated complaint, which the plaintiffs filed on May 21, 2023 (Case No. 3:23-cv-00501-AMO; the "NDCA Class Action Matter"), as well as motions to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration. In addition to the aforementioned claims, the plaintiffs in the now consolidated matter bring claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, common law negligence and negligence per se, in each case, pleaded in the alternative. The plaintiffs are seeking various forms of monetary damages (such as statutory damages, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and disgorgement of profits) as well as injunctive relief. Briefing on the motions to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration was completed on August 24, 2023. On October 27, 2023, six plaintiffs filed a class action complaint (Case No. 1:23-cv-24127-BB; the “SDFL Class Action Matter”) against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"). The plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of the same nationwide class as the NDCA Class Action Matter, substantially the same statutory and common law violation claims as alleged in that matter as well as claims based on the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, invasion of privacy under California common law and the California constitution, invasion of privacy under New Jersey's Constitution, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, Florida’s Security of Communications Act, New York’s Civil Rights Law and Stop Hack and Improve Electronic Data Security Act. The plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action Matter seek various forms of monetary damages as well as injunctive and other unspecified equitable relief. On October 27, 2023, we entered into a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action Matter, on behalf of a nationwide settlement class that includes the NDCA Class Action Matter, which provides for a payment of $13.0 million by us. On October 30, 2023, the plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action Matter filed a motion and memorandum in support of preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement and, on October 31, 2023, the SDFL granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. Members of the class have the opportunity to opt-out of the class and commence their own actions. In response to the proposed settlement in the SDFL Class Action Matter, plaintiffs in the NDCA Class Action Matter filed (i) on November 1, 2023, a motion in the NDCA for an order to require us to cease litigation of, or alternatively file a motion to stay in, the SDFL Class Action Matter and enjoin us from seeking settlement with counsel other than plaintiffs’ counsel in the NDCA Class Action Matter; and (ii) on November 2, 2023, a motion in the SDFL for that court to allow them to intervene and appear in the SDFL action, transfer the SDFL Class Action Matter to the NDCA and reconsider and deny its preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The SDFL has issued an order requiring the SDFL plaintiffs to, among other things, file a response to the NDCA plaintiffs' motion to intervene. Additionally, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in the NDCA issued an order for us to show cause as to why we should not be sanctioned for an alleged failure to provide notification to the NDCA of the pendency of the SDFL Class Action Matter. We filed our written response to this order on November 8, 2023. The NDCA held a hearing on November 14, 2023, and ordered parties to the litigation to participate in mediation. The parties participated in mediation on January 10, 2024, and agreed to participate in an additional day of mediation, which occurred on March 7, 2024. On December 3, 2024, the SDFL plaintiffs filed a voluntary motion to dismiss, with prejudice, which was approved by the court on December 4, 2024. On November 25, 2024, we entered into a settlement agreement with the NDCA plaintiffs for $25.0 million, subject to approval by the court. On June 12, 2025, the court denied the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with prejudice, with leave for the plaintiffs to refile with additional information requested by the court. Based on the settlement agreement, an estimated probable loss of $25.0 million was included within accrued expenses and other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025. Additionally, we estimated a probable loss of $5.5 million relating to the indemnification of certain parties named in the class action lawsuits, which was included within accrued expenses and other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025. While these amounts represent our best judgment of the probable losses based on the information currently available to us, they are subject to significant judgments and estimates and numerous factors beyond our control, including, without limitation, final approval of the court. On November 19, 2025, together with another party named in the class action lawsuit, we filed an amended settlement agreement. On November 26, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement. On January 16, 2026, the court denied the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, requesting additional information from the plaintiffs. On March 24, 2026, the plaintiffs filed an administrative motion for leave to submit supplemental brief to address the court's concerns and request for status conference. On March 26, 2026, the court denied the motion but granted plaintiffs leave to submit a new motion for preliminary approval. Plaintiffs filed a new motion for preliminary approval on June 1, 2026, which is set for a hearing on September 3, 2026. The terms of the amended settlement agreement were reflective of the aggregate probable loss recorded in connection with this matter and, as such, we did not accrue for any additional amounts. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and upon final resolution of these matters, it is reasonably possible that the actual loss may differ from our estimates. Consumer state litigations - On May 28, 2024, The Bert and Annette Mullens Foundation ("Mullens Foundation") filed a lawsuit against us in Pope County, Arkansas, alleging that we violated an Arkansas statute related to the distribution of health-related discount cards. Specifically, the statute provides that each discount card must “expressly provide in bold and prominent type that the discounts are not insurance.” Ark. Code Ann. § 4-106-201(1). Furthermore, the statute provides that each card must “expressly provide in bold and prominent type on the card or in a statement attached to the card that the consumer has the right to cancel his or her registration within thirty (30) days from the effective date of the card.” Ark. Code Ann. § 4-106-201(2). The plaintiff alleges that our cards did not comply with these requirements, and sought an injunction and statutory damages. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied on December 2, 2024. On May 9, 2025, the Arkansas Attorney General moved to intervene in the case. On May 13, 2025, the plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, which we and the Arkansas Attorney General opposed. Separately, on September 24, 2025, the State of Arkansas, ex rel. Tim Griffin, Attorney General, filed suit in Faulkner County, Arkansas alleging the same violations of Ark. Code Ann. § 4-106-201 et seq. as the Mullens Foundation in addition to violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA"). On September 25, 2025, the Circuit Court of Faulkner County entered a Consent Judgment through which the plaintiff, acting parens patriae for the people of Arkansas, released us from any and all claims and remedies available or potentially available under the ADTPA and the discount card statute, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-106-201 et seq. for GoodRx discount cards sold, marketed, promoted, advertised, or otherwise distributed in Arkansas from January 1, 2022 until the effective date of the agreement. As part of the Consent Judgment, we also agreed to pay immaterial monetary relief. On July 20, 2026, the Arkansas Attorney General moved to intervene to move for summary judgment dismissing the Mullens Foundation case. Furthermore, on June 11, 2024, the Minnesota Teamsters Service Bureau also filed a lawsuit against us in Hennepin County, Minnesota, alleging that we violated a Minnesota statute related to the distribution of health-related discount cards. Specifically, the statute provides that each discount card must “expressly provide in bold and prominent type that the discounts are not insurance.” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325F.784, subd. 1(1). The plaintiff alleges that our cards do not comply with these requirements and also seeks an injunction and statutory damages. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied on December 17, 2024. On June 10, 2025, the plaintiff moved to dismiss some of our counterclaims; the court granted the motion to dismiss. Discovery has been completed in Minnesota. On October 10, 2025, we moved for summary judgment and plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment. On February 5, 2026, the court entered an order on our motion for summary judgment, directing that judgment be entered dismissing plaintiff’s claims as time-barred. On April 10, 2026, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal regarding the court’s summary judgment decision. On June 18, 2026, plaintiff filed their brief on appeal and we filed our opposition on July 20, 2026. We intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the Mullens Foundation matter and the Minnesota Teamsters Service Bureau matters as we believe we have meritorious defenses to such claims. While it is reasonably possible a loss may have been incurred, we have not accrued a loss as a loss is not probable and we are unable to estimate a loss or range of loss. These pending proceedings involve complex questions of fact and law and may require the expenditure of significant funds and the diversion of other resources to defend. In addition, during the normal course of business, we (including our directors and officers whom we indemnify) may become subject to, and are presently involved in, legal proceedings, claims and litigation. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Aside from the consumer privacy class action matter, we have not accrued for a material loss for any other matters as a loss is not probable and a loss, or a range of loss, is not reasonably estimable. Accruals for loss contingencies are recognized when a loss is probable, and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. See "Note 4. Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities" for additional information. Loss recoveries are recognized when a loss has been incurred and the recovery is probable. Insurance recovery receivables of $11.9 million were included in prepaid expenses and other current assets on our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2026

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Aside from the below, as of June 30, 2026, there were no material changes to our commitments and contingencies as

disclosed in the notes to our consolidated financial statements included in our 2025 10-K.

Legal Contingencies

Consumer privacy class action - Between February 2, 2023, and March 30, 2023, five individual plaintiffs filed five

separate putative class action lawsuits against Google, Meta, Criteo and us, alleging generally that we have not adequately

protected consumer privacy and that we communicated consumer information to third parties, including the three co-

defendants. Four of the plaintiffs allege common law intrusion upon seclusion and unjust enrichment claims, as well as

claims under California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Invasion of Privacy Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act,

and Unfair Competition Law. One of these four plaintiffs additionally brings a claim under the Electronic Communications

Privacy Act. The fifth plaintiff brings claims for common-law unjust enrichment and violations of New York’s General

Business Law. Four of these cases were originally filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California ("NDCA") (Cases No. 3:23-cv-00501; 3:23-cv-00744; 3:23-cv-00940; and 4:23-cv-01293). One case was originally

filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:23-cv-00943); however, that case

was voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in the NDCA (Case No. 3:23-cv-01508). These five matters have been consolidated

and assigned to U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in the NDCA. The court also set a briefing schedule for filing a

single consolidated complaint, which the plaintiffs filed on May 21, 2023 (Case No. 3:23-cv-00501-AMO; the "NDCA Class

Action Matter"), as well as motions to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration. In addition to the aforementioned claims,

the plaintiffs in the now consolidated matter bring claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business

Practices Act, common law negligence and negligence per se, in each case, pleaded in the alternative. The plaintiffs are

seeking various forms of monetary damages (such as statutory damages, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and

disgorgement of profits) as well as injunctive relief. Briefing on the motions to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration was

completed on August 24, 2023.

On October 27, 2023, six plaintiffs filed a class action complaint (Case No. 1:23-cv-24127-BB; the “SDFL Class Action

Matter”) against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"). The plaintiffs alleged, on

behalf of the same nationwide class as the NDCA Class Action Matter, substantially the same statutory and common law

violation claims as alleged in that matter as well as claims based on the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act,

invasion of privacy under California common law and the California constitution, invasion of privacy under New Jersey's

Constitution, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, Florida’s Security of

Communications Act, New York’s Civil Rights Law and Stop Hack and Improve Electronic Data Security Act. The plaintiffs in

the SDFL Class Action Matter seek various forms of monetary damages as well as injunctive and other unspecified equitable

relief.

On October 27, 2023, we entered into a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action

Matter, on behalf of a nationwide settlement class that includes the NDCA Class Action Matter, which provides for a payment

of $13.0 million by us. On October 30, 2023, the plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action Matter filed a motion and memorandum

in support of preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement and, on October 31, 2023, the SDFL granted

preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. Members of the class have the opportunity to opt-out of the class and

commence their own actions.

In response to the proposed settlement in the SDFL Class Action Matter, plaintiffs in the NDCA Class Action Matter filed

(i) on November 1, 2023, a motion in the NDCA for an order to require us to cease litigation of, or alternatively file a motion

to stay in, the SDFL Class Action Matter and enjoin us from seeking settlement with counsel other than plaintiffs’ counsel in

the NDCA Class Action Matter; and (ii) on November 2, 2023, a motion in the SDFL for that court to allow them to intervene

and appear in the SDFL action, transfer the SDFL Class Action Matter to the NDCA and reconsider and deny its preliminary

approval of the proposed settlement. The SDFL has issued an order requiring the SDFL plaintiffs to, among other things, file

a response to the NDCA plaintiffs' motion to intervene. Additionally, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in the NDCA

issued an order for us to show cause as to why we should not be sanctioned for an alleged failure to provide notification to

the NDCA of the pendency of the SDFL Class Action Matter. We filed our written response to this order on November 8,

2023. The NDCA held a hearing on November 14, 2023, and ordered parties to the litigation to participate in mediation. The

parties participated in mediation on January 10, 2024, and agreed to participate in an additional day of mediation, which

occurred on March 7, 2024.

On December 3, 2024, the SDFL plaintiffs filed a voluntary motion to dismiss, with prejudice, which was approved by

the court on December 4, 2024. On November 25, 2024, we entered into a settlement agreement with the NDCA plaintiffs

for $25.0 million, subject to approval by the court. On June 12, 2025, the court denied the motion for preliminary approval of

the settlement with prejudice, with leave for the plaintiffs to refile with additional information requested by the court. Based

on the settlement agreement, an estimated probable loss of $25.0 million was included within accrued expenses and other

current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025. Additionally,

we estimated a probable loss of $5.5 million relating to the indemnification of certain parties named in the class action

lawsuits, which was included within accrued expenses and other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance

sheets as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025. While these amounts represent our best judgment of the probable

losses based on the information currently available to us, they are subject to significant judgments and estimates and

numerous factors beyond our control, including, without limitation, final approval of the court.

On November 19, 2025, together with another party named in the class action lawsuit, we filed an amended settlement

agreement. On November 26, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement. On January 16,

2026, the court denied the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, requesting additional information from the

plaintiffs. On March 24, 2026, the plaintiffs filed an administrative motion for leave to submit supplemental brief to address

the court's concerns and request for status conference. On March 26, 2026, the court denied the motion but granted

plaintiffs leave to submit a new motion for preliminary approval. Plaintiffs filed a new motion for preliminary approval on June

1, 2026, which is set for a hearing on September 3, 2026. The terms of the amended settlement agreement were reflective

of the aggregate probable loss recorded in connection with this matter and, as such, we did not accrue for any additional

amounts. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and upon final resolution of these matters, it is

reasonably possible that the actual loss may differ from our estimates.

Consumer state litigations - On May 28, 2024, The Bert and Annette Mullens Foundation ("Mullens Foundation") filed a

lawsuit against us in Pope County, Arkansas, alleging that we violated an Arkansas statute related to the distribution of

health-related discount cards. Specifically, the statute provides that each discount card must “expressly provide in bold and

prominent type that the discounts are not insurance.” Ark. Code Ann. § 4-106-201(1). Furthermore, the statute provides that

each card must “expressly provide in bold and prominent type on the card or in a statement attached to the card that the

consumer has the right to cancel his or her registration within thirty (30) days from the effective date of the card.” Ark. Code

Ann. § 4-106-201(2). The plaintiff alleges that our cards did not comply with these requirements, and sought an injunction

and statutory damages. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied on December 2, 2024. On May 9,

2025, the Arkansas Attorney General moved to intervene in the case. On May 13, 2025, the plaintiff moved for partial

summary judgment, which we and the Arkansas Attorney General opposed. Separately, on September 24, 2025, the State of

Arkansas, ex rel. Tim Griffin, Attorney General, filed suit in Faulkner County, Arkansas alleging the same violations of Ark.

Code Ann. § 4-106-201 et seq. as the Mullens Foundation in addition to violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade

Practices Act ("ADTPA"). On September 25, 2025, the Circuit Court of Faulkner County entered a Consent Judgment

through which the plaintiff, acting parens patriae for the people of Arkansas, released us from any and all claims and

remedies available or potentially available under the ADTPA and the discount card statute, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-106-201 et

seq. for GoodRx discount cards sold, marketed, promoted, advertised, or otherwise distributed in Arkansas from January 1,

2022 until the effective date of the agreement. As part of the Consent Judgment, we also agreed to pay immaterial monetary

relief. On July 20, 2026, the Arkansas Attorney General moved to intervene to move for summary judgment dismissing the

Mullens Foundation case.

Furthermore, on June 11, 2024, the Minnesota Teamsters Service Bureau also filed a lawsuit against us in Hennepin

County, Minnesota, alleging that we violated a Minnesota statute related to the distribution of health-related discount cards.

Specifically, the statute provides that each discount card must “expressly provide in bold and prominent type that the

discounts are not insurance.” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325F.784, subd. 1(1). The plaintiff alleges that our cards do not comply with

these requirements and also seeks an injunction and statutory damages. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which

was denied on December 17, 2024. On June 10, 2025, the plaintiff moved to dismiss some of our counterclaims; the court

granted the motion to dismiss. Discovery has been completed in Minnesota. On October 10, 2025, we moved for summary

judgment and plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment. On February 5, 2026, the court entered an order on our motion

for summary judgment, directing that judgment be entered dismissing plaintiff’s claims as time-barred. On April 10, 2026,

plaintiff filed a notice of appeal regarding the court’s summary judgment decision. On June 18, 2026, plaintiff filed their brief

on appeal and we filed our opposition on July 20, 2026.

We intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the Mullens Foundation matter and the Minnesota

Teamsters Service Bureau matters as we believe we have meritorious defenses to such claims. While it is reasonably

possible a loss may have been incurred, we have not accrued a loss as a loss is not probable and we are unable to estimate

a loss or range of loss.

These pending proceedings involve complex questions of fact and law and may require the expenditure of significant

funds and the diversion of other resources to defend. In addition, during the normal course of business, we (including our

directors and officers whom we indemnify) may become subject to, and are presently involved in, legal proceedings, claims

and litigation. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Aside from

the consumer privacy class action matter, we have not accrued for a material loss for any other matters as a loss is not

probable and a loss, or a range of loss, is not reasonably estimable. Accruals for loss contingencies are recognized when a

loss is probable, and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. See "Note 4. Accrued Expenses and Other

Current Liabilities" for additional information. Loss recoveries are recognized when a loss has been incurred and the

recovery is probable. Insurance recovery receivables of $11.9 million were included in prepaid expenses and other current

assets on our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025.