Company: TRUE
Filing Date: 2025-05-06
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001327318-25-000016
Chunk: 259

Company: TrueCar, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-05-06
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 8
Chunk 259
---
Ohio: In 2017, we received an investigatory subpoena from the Consumer Protection Section of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Ohio issued pursuant to the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The investigatory subpoena requested certain information about online content we displayed related to vehicles listed for sale by TrueCar Certified Dealers in Ohio. We responded to the investigatory subpoena and supplied the information it sought. In light of the fact that no further action has been taken with respect to this matter subsequent to our response to the investigatory subpoena, we consider this matter to be resolved, but we cannot assure you that this matter or similar matters will not reemerge in the future.

53

Actions Brought by Dealers, Consumers and Other Third Parties

•CNCDA Litigation: In 2015, we were named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by the CNCDA in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief based on allegations that we were operating in the State of California as an unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker. In 2017, the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement to fully resolve the lawsuit, and the litigation was dismissed.

•California Dealer Litigation: In 2015, we were named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles by numerous dealers participating on the TrueCar platform. The complaint, as subsequently amended, sought declaratory and injunctive relief based on allegations that we were engaging in unfairly competitive practices and were operating as an unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker in contravention of various state laws. Later that year, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit “without prejudice,” which means that while this litigation is currently resolved, it could be re-commenced at a later date.

•California Consumer Class Action: In 2015, we were named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, which we refer to as the California Consumer Class Action. The complaint asserted claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and violation of the California Business and Professions Code, based in part on allegations that we are operating in the State of California as an unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker. After the trial and appellate courts rejected the plaintiff’s motion for class certification, he voluntarily dismissed the remainder of his case, meaning that the California Consumer Class Action is currently resolved.

•Haas Class Action: