Vroom Inc

From time to time, we are subject to legal proceedings in the normal course of operating our business. The outcome of litigation, regardless of the merits, is inherently uncertain. Beginning in March 2021, multiple putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by certain of the Company’s stockholders against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers alleging violations of federal securities laws. The lawsuits were captioned Zawatsky et al. v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-2477; Holbrook v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-2551; and Hudda v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-3296. All three of the lawsuits asserted similar claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5. In each case, the named plaintiff(s) sought to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during a period from June 9, 2020 to March 3, 2021 (in the case of Holbrook and Hudda), or November 11, 2020 to March 3, 2021 (in the case of Zawatsky). In August 2021, the Court consolidated the cases under the new name In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-2477, appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and ordered a consolidated amended complaint to be filed. The court-appointed lead plaintiff subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint that reasserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers, and added new claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act against the Company, certain of its officers, certain of its directors, and the underwriters of the Company’s September 2020 secondary offering. The Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims, and briefing of this motion is complete. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously contest these claims. While the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations.

In August 2021, November 2021, January 2022, and February 2022, various Company stockholders filed purported shareholder derivative lawsuits on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain of the Company’s officers and directors, and nominally against the Company, alleging violations of the federal securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty to the Company and/or related violations of Delaware law based on the same general course of conduct alleged in In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation. All four lawsuits have been consolidated under the case caption In re Vroom, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-6933, and the court has approved the parties’ stipulation that the cases would remain stayed pending final resolution of In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation. All four derivative suits remain in preliminary stages and there have been no substantive developments in any matter.

In April 2022, one of the Company’s stockholders filed a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against certain of the Company’s officers and directors, and nominally against the Company, alleging violations of the federal securities law and breaches of fiduciary duty to the Company and/or related violations of Delaware law based on the same general course of conduct alleged in In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation. The case is captioned Godlu v. Hennessy et al., Case No. 22-cv-569, and the court has approved the parties’ stipulation that the case would remain stayed pending final resolution of In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation. This lawsuit remains in preliminary stages and there have been no substantive developments.

In January 2022, the Company received a non-public civil investigative demand from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), seeking the production of information related to certain of the Company's business practices and the Company responded to those information requests. On February 23, 2024, the FTC notified the Company that it has reason to believe that the Company violated Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); the FTC's Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 435; the FTC’s Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule,16 C.F.R. Part 455; and the FTC’s Pre-Sale Availability Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 702. The FTC advised the Company that it is authorized to negotiate a stipulated order and the Company intends to work cooperatively with the FTC towards a resolution. Because the matter is at an early stage and the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, the Company cannot determine at present whether any potential liability would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations.

In April 2022, the Attorney General of Texas filed a petition on behalf of the State of Texas in the District Court of Travis County, Texas against the Company, alleging violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices − Consumer Protection Act, Texas Business and Commerce Code § 17.41 et seq., based on alleged deficiencies and other issues in the Company’s marketing of used vehicles and fulfilment of customer orders, including the titling and registration of sold vehicles. According to the petition, 80% of the customer complaints referenced in the petition were received in the 12 months prior to April 2022. The petition is captioned State of Texas v. Vroom Automotive LLC, and Vroom Inc., Case No. D-1-GN-001809. In May 2022, Vroom Automotive, LLC the Attorney General of the State of Texas agreed to a temporary injunction in which Vroom Automotive, LLC agreed to adhere to its existing practice of possessing title for all vehicles it sells or advertises as available for sale on its ecommerce platform. In December 2023, Vroom, Inc., Vroom Automotive,

LLC and the Attorney General of the State of Texas reached a final agreement to resolve all claims in the petition, without any admission of wrongdoing by either Vroom entity. Under the agreement, the Company will pay a total of $2 million in civil penalties and $1 million in attorneys' fees, with the first half due in September 2024 and the remaining half due in September 2025, and abide permanently by an injunction of certain operational practices that were previously implemented. The agreement was approved by the District Court of Travis County on December 13, 2023.

In July 2022 and August 2022, respectively, certain plaintiffs filed two putative class action lawsuits in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma and the New York State Supreme Court, respectively, against Vroom, Inc., and Vroom Automotive LLC as defendants, alleging, among other things, deficiencies in Vroom’s titling and registration of sold vehicles: Blake Sonne, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. Vroom Automotive, LLC and Vroom, Inc., No. CJ-2022-822 and Emely Reyes Martinez, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Vroom Automotive, LLC and Vroom Inc., No. 652684/2022. The Company removed the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Case No. 22-cv-761) and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 22-cv-7631), respectively, and filed motions to compel arbitration of all claims in both cases. In September 2023, Vroom’s motions to compel arbitration were granted in both cases, and the court actions stayed pending the outcome of any arbitration proceeding over the respective plaintiffs’ individual claims. On February 9, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the Sonne matter with prejudice.

As previously disclosed, we have been subject to audits, requests for information, investigations and other inquiries from our regulators relating to increased customer complaints concerning the same or similar matters alleged in the State of Texas petition. These regulatory matters could continue to progress into legal proceedings as well as enforcement actions. We have incurred fines in certain states and could continue to incur fines, penalties, restitution, or alterations in our business practices, which in turn, could lead to increased business expenses, additional limitations on our business activities and further reputational damage, although to date such expenses have not had a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations.