Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies License Agreements The Company enters into license agreements with various licensors of copyrighted and trademarked characters and design in connection with the products that it sells. The agreements generally require royalty payments based on product sales and in some cases may require minimum royalty and other related commitments. Our license agreements typically grant our licensors the right to audit our compliance with the terms and conditions of such agreements. Any such audit could result in a dispute over whether we have paid the proper royalties and a requirement that we pay additional royalties. As of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, we had accruals of $34.1 million and $29.6 million, respectively, related to ongoing and future royalty audits, based on estimates of the costs we expect to incur. Pre-Production Costs and Inventory The Company routinely enters into purchase commitments for tooling and molds and pre-production costs related to inventory. The Company bases production schedules for products on internal forecasts, taking into account historical trends of similar products and properties, current market information and communications with customers. Employment Agreements The Company has employment agreements with certain officers. The agreements include, among other things, an annual bonus based on certain performance metrics of the Company, as defined by the board of directors, and up to two years’ severance pay beyond termination date. Debt The Company has entered into a Credit Facility which includes a term loan facility and a revolving credit facility. The Company has also entered into an Equipment Finance Loan. See Note 4, “Debt”. Tax Receivable Agreement The Company is party to the Tax Receivable Agreement that provides for the payment by the Company to the TRA Parties under certain circumstances. See Note 5, “Liabilities under Tax Receivable Agreement”. Leases The Company has entered into non-cancellable operating leases for office, warehouse, and distribution facilities, with original lease periods expiring through 2032. Some operating leases also contain the option to renew for five-year periods at prevailing market rates at the time of renewal. In addition to minimum rent, certain of the leases require payment of real estate taxes, insurance, common area maintenance charges, and other executory costs. During the second quarter of 2026, the Company entered into a lease agreement for a new office facility in Burbank, California. The landlord is expected to deliver possession of the premises on or before January 1, 2027, at which time the Company will commence a 10-month beneficial occupancy period during which it may occupy the premises while fixed rent and standard operating expenses are abated. The lease commencement date will occur upon expiration of the beneficial occupancy period, at which time the lease's 129-month non-cancellable term will begin. Because the lease had not commenced as of the reporting date, no right-of-use asset or lease liability has been recognized. Upon lease commencement, the Company expects to recognize a material operating lease right-of-use asset and corresponding lease liability. Total fixed rent commitments under the lease are approximately $31 million over the non-cancellable lease term. Legal Contingencies The Company is involved in claims and litigation in the ordinary course of business, some of which seek monetary damages, including claims for punitive damages, which are not covered by insurance. For certain pending matters, accruals have not been established because such matters have not progressed sufficiently through discovery, and/or development of important factual information and legal information is insufficient to enable the Company to estimate a range of possible loss, if any. An adverse determination in one or more of these pending matters could have an adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Company is, and may in the future become, subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in or outside the ordinary course of business. For example, on January 18, 2022, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Shumacher v. Mariotti, et al., relating to the Company’s corporate “Up-C” structure and bringing direct claims for breach of fiduciary duties against certain current and former officers and directors, seeking declaratory, monetary, and injunctive relief. On March 31, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the action. In response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May 25, 2022. The amendment did not materially change the claims at issue, and the Defendants again moved to dismiss on August 12, 2022. On December 15, 2022, Plaintiff opposed the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and also moved for attorneys’ fees. On December 18, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs’ application for an interim fee. On March 13, 2024, the representative plaintiff moved to withdraw as a plaintiff in the action, and another purported stockholder moved to intervene as representative plaintiff. On October 28, 2024, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to withdraw and granted the new representative plaintiff’s motion to intervene. As a result, the litigation is now captioned Lynch vs. Mariotti, et al. In October 2025, the parties participated in a mediation to resolve the litigation. On February 18, 2026, the parties executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company agreed, through its insurers, to resolve the remaining claims for $5.4 million, and to pay plaintiff’s counsel a mootness fee of $3.0 million. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement of $8.4 million and the settlement was paid prior to the end of the second quarter directly by the Company’s applicable insurers. The Court approved the final settlement on July 8, 2026. On June 2, 2023, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, captioned Studen v. Funko, Inc., et al. On August 17, 2023, the Court appointed two lead plaintiffs, and, those lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2023. The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly materially misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC, as well as in earnings calls and presentations to investors, regarding a planned upgrade to its enterprise resource planning system and the relocation of a distribution center, as well as by omitting material facts about the same subjects necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of investors who purchased or acquired Funko common stock between March 3, 2022 and March 1, 2023, and seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 16, 2024, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with leave for Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. On July 1, 2024, Plaintiffs notified the Court of their decision to not amend their complaint, and the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on July 8, 2024. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 6, 2024, under the amended caption Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko, Inc., et al. Plaintiffs’ opening brief was filed on October 21, 2024, and briefing was completed on February 10, 2025. Oral argument was held on May 23, 2025. On February 4, 2026, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court’s decision. Specifically, it affirmed the dismissal of all claims based on statements made on earnings calls and presentations to investors, but reversed the dismissal of claims based on certain risk factor disclosures made in the Company’s SEC filings. On April 3, 2026, Defendants filed a petition with the Court of Appeals asking for a rehearing by the same panel or by the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc. That petition remains pending. On April 12, 2024, a former employee of the Company filed a putative class action in San Diego Superior Court, seeking to represent all non-exempt workers of the Company in the State of California. The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and related statutes. Plaintiff has also served a Private Attorneys General Act notice for the same alleged wage and hour violations. The claims predominantly relate to alleged unpaid wages (overtime) and missed meal and rest breaks. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs. On May 20, 2025, the parties participated in mediation and reached an immaterial monetary settlement in exchange for a release of all claims that were or could have been asserted in the complaint for the period from April 12, 2020 through July 19, 2025. In January 2026, the Court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The settlement administrator mailed class notices to the class members in February 2026. On May 1, 2026, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment. Payment of the settlement was made in May 2026. On March 2, 2026, a purported stockholder filed a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company as a nominal defendant against certain of our current and former directors in the District Court for the Western District of Washington, captioned Marconi v. Perlmutter et al. The derivative complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment claims, as well as a violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, arising from substantially similar factual predicate as alleged in the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko, Inc. matter discussed above and seeks monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs and corporate governance reforms. On July 15, 2026, the parties jointly requested that the Court stay the Marconi matter pending final resolution of Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko, Inc., et al. The parties’ request remains pending. On May 8, 2026, plaintiffs Peter Dirksen, Aviva Copaken, and Steven Beltran filed a putative class action complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint asserts nine causes of action relating to alleged invasions of privacy, wiretapping, violations of consumer protection laws, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, statutory damages, actual damages, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 17, 2026, asserting lack of standing, application of improper law, and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Concurrently, the Company also filed a motion to compel arbitration with respect to one of the plaintiffs. The motions are scheduled to be heard by the court in September 2026. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the allegations, however, there can be no assurances as to the outcome. The Company is party to additional legal proceedings incidental to its business. While the outcome of these additional matters could differ from management’s expectations, the Company does not believe that the resolution of such matters is reasonably likely to have a material effect on its results of operations or financial condition.

The Company enters into license agreements with various licensors of copyrighted and trademarked characters and design in connection with the products that it sells. The agreements generally require royalty payments based on product sales and in some cases may require minimum royalty and other related commitments. Our license agreements typically grant our licensors the right to audit our compliance with the terms and conditions of such agreements. Any such audit could result in a dispute over whether we have paid the proper royalties and a requirement that we pay additional royalties. As of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, we had accruals of $34.1 million and $29.6 million, respectively, related to ongoing and future royalty audits, based on estimates of the costs we expect to incur.

During the second quarter of 2026, the Company entered into a lease agreement for a new office facility in Burbank, California. The landlord is expected to deliver possession of the premises on or before January 1, 2027, at which time the Company will commence a 10-month beneficial occupancy period during which it may occupy the premises while fixed rent and standard operating expenses are abated. The lease commencement date will occur upon expiration of the beneficial occupancy period, at which time the lease's 129-month non-cancellable term will begin. Because the lease had not commenced as of the reporting date, no right-of-use asset or lease liability has been recognized. Upon lease commencement, the Company expects to recognize a material operating lease right-of-use asset and corresponding lease liability. Total fixed rent commitments under the lease are approximately $31 million over the non-cancellable lease term.

The Company is involved in claims and litigation in the ordinary course of business, some of which seek monetary damages, including claims for punitive damages, which are not covered by insurance. For certain pending matters, accruals have not been established because such matters have not progressed sufficiently through discovery, and/or development of important factual information and legal information is insufficient to enable the Company to estimate a range of possible loss, if any. An adverse determination in one or more of these pending matters could have an adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company is, and may in the future become, subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in or outside the ordinary course of business. For example, on January 18, 2022, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Shumacher v. Mariotti, et al., relating to the Company’s corporate “Up-C” structure and bringing direct claims for breach of fiduciary duties against certain current and former officers and directors, seeking declaratory, monetary, and injunctive relief. On March 31, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the action. In response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May 25, 2022. The amendment did not materially change the claims at issue, and the Defendants again moved to dismiss on August 12, 2022. On December 15, 2022, Plaintiff opposed the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and also moved for attorneys’ fees. On December 18, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs’ application for an interim fee. On March 13, 2024, the representative plaintiff moved to withdraw as a plaintiff in the action, and another purported stockholder moved to intervene as representative plaintiff. On October 28, 2024, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to withdraw and granted the new representative plaintiff’s motion to intervene. As a result, the litigation is now captioned Lynch vs. Mariotti, et al. In October 2025, the parties participated in a mediation to resolve the litigation. On February 18, 2026, the parties executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company agreed, through its insurers, to resolve the remaining claims for $5.4 million, and to pay plaintiff’s counsel a mootness fee of $3.0 million. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement of $8.4 million and the settlement was paid prior to the end of the second quarter directly by the Company’s applicable insurers. The Court approved the final settlement on July 8, 2026.

On June 2, 2023, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, captioned Studen v. Funko, Inc., et al. On August 17, 2023, the Court appointed two lead plaintiffs, and, those lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2023. The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly materially misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC, as well as in earnings calls and presentations to investors, regarding a planned upgrade to its enterprise resource planning system and the relocation of a distribution center, as well as by omitting material facts about the same subjects necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of investors who purchased or acquired Funko common stock between March 3, 2022 and March 1, 2023, and seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 16, 2024, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with leave for Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. On July 1, 2024, Plaintiffs notified the Court of their decision to not amend their complaint, and the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on July 8, 2024. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 6, 2024, under the amended caption Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko, Inc., et al. Plaintiffs’ opening brief was filed on October 21, 2024, and briefing was completed on February 10, 2025. Oral argument was held on May 23, 2025. On February 4, 2026, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court’s decision. Specifically, it affirmed the dismissal of all claims based on statements made on earnings calls and presentations to investors, but reversed the dismissal of claims based on certain risk factor disclosures made in the Company’s SEC filings. On April 3, 2026, Defendants filed a petition with the Court of Appeals asking for a rehearing by the same panel or by the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc. That petition remains pending.

On April 12, 2024, a former employee of the Company filed a putative class action in San Diego Superior Court, seeking to represent all non-exempt workers of the Company in the State of California. The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and related statutes. Plaintiff has also served a Private Attorneys General Act notice for the same alleged wage and hour violations. The claims predominantly relate to alleged unpaid wages (overtime) and missed meal and rest breaks. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs. On May 20, 2025, the parties participated in mediation and reached an immaterial monetary settlement in exchange for a release of all claims that were or could have been asserted in the complaint for the period from April 12, 2020 through July 19, 2025. In January 2026, the Court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The settlement administrator mailed class notices to the class members in February 2026. On May 1, 2026, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment. Payment of the settlement was made in May 2026.

On March 2, 2026, a purported stockholder filed a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company as a nominal defendant against certain of our current and former directors in the District Court for the Western District of Washington, captioned Marconi v. Perlmutter et al. The derivative complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment claims, as well as a violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, arising from substantially similar factual predicate as alleged in the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko, Inc. matter discussed above and seeks monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs and corporate governance reforms. On July 15, 2026, the parties jointly requested that the Court stay the Marconi matter pending final resolution of Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko, Inc., et al. The parties’ request remains pending.

On May 8, 2026, plaintiffs Peter Dirksen, Aviva Copaken, and Steven Beltran filed a putative class action complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint asserts nine causes of action relating to alleged invasions of privacy, wiretapping, violations of consumer protection laws, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, statutory damages, actual damages, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 17, 2026, asserting lack of standing, application of improper law, and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Concurrently, the Company also filed a motion to compel arbitration with respect to one of the plaintiffs. The motions are scheduled to be heard by the court in September 2026. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the allegations, however, there can be no assurances as to the outcome.