Commitment and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	13. Commitments and Contingencies The Company had $2.3 million of bank guarantees at March 31, 2025 required to support bids and contracts with certain international customers. The Company is subject to tax audits in the normal course of business and does not have material contingencies recorded related to such audits. The Company accrues for claims and contingencies when losses become probable and reasonably estimable. As of the end of each applicable reporting period, the Company reviews each of its matters and, where it is probable that a liability has been or will be incurred, the Company accrues for all probable and reasonably estimable losses. Where the Company can reasonably estimate a range of loss it may incur regarding such a matter, the Company records an accrual for the amount within the range that constitutes its best estimate. If the Company can reasonably estimate a range but no amount within the range appears to be a better estimate than any other, the Company uses the amount that is the low end of such range. Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to legal and regulatory actions that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The Company records a liability when it believes it is probable a loss will be incurred, and the amount of loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. The assessment as to whether a loss is probable, reasonably possible or remote, and as to whether a loss or a range of such loss is estimable, often involves significant judgment about future events. The Company has accrued estimated amounts related to legal proceedings as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024 within accrued liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The ultimate cost of litigation or settlement of one or more of the following cases could be materially different than the amount of the current estimates and accruals and could have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Brantley v. City of Gretna is a class action lawsuit filed in the 24th Judicial District Court of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana against the City of Gretna (the “City”) and its safety camera vendor, Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. in April 2016. The Company acquired Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. as part of its June 2021 purchase of Redflex Holdings Limited. The plaintiff class, which was certified on March 30, 2021, alleges that the City’s safety camera program was implemented and operated in violation of local ordinances and the state constitution, including that the City’s hearing process violated the plaintiffs’ due process rights for lack of a “neutral” arbiter of liability for traffic infractions. Plaintiffs seek recovery of traffic infraction fines paid. The City and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. appealed the trial court’s ruling granting class certification, which was denied and their petition for discretionary review of the certification ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court was declined. The parties entered into a settlement agreement and preliminary approval was granted by the court in April 2025. A final settlement amount has not yet been determined and requires final approval from the court. PlusPass Inc. (“PlusPass”) v. Verra Mobility Corporation, et al. is a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, against Verra Mobility, The Gores Group LLC, Platinum Equity LLC and ATS Processing Services, Inc., in November 2020. In February 2024, Verra Mobility and PlusPass entered into a confidential business arrangement pursuant to which Verra Mobility (i) acquired certain assets from PlusPass and (ii) fully and finally resolved all litigation and disputes between the parties, including the payment of the settlement amount during the first quarter of 2024.

Commitment and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

13. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company had $2.3 million of bank guarantees at March 31, 2025 required to support bids and contracts with certain international customers.

The Company is subject to tax audits in the normal course of business and does not have material contingencies recorded related to such audits.

The Company accrues for claims and contingencies when losses become probable and reasonably estimable. As of the end of each applicable reporting period, the Company reviews each of its matters and, where it is probable that a liability has been or will be incurred, the Company accrues for all probable and reasonably estimable losses. Where the Company can reasonably estimate a range of loss it may incur regarding such a matter, the Company records an accrual for the amount within the range that constitutes its best estimate. If the Company can reasonably estimate a range but no amount within the range appears to be a better estimate than any other, the Company uses the amount that is the low end of such range.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is subject to legal and regulatory actions that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The Company records a liability when it believes it is probable a loss will be incurred, and the amount of loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. The assessment as to whether a loss is probable, reasonably possible or remote, and as to whether a loss or a range of such loss is estimable, often involves significant judgment about future events. The Company has accrued estimated amounts related to legal proceedings as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024 within accrued liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The ultimate cost of litigation or settlement of one or more of the following cases could be materially different than the amount of the current estimates and accruals and could have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Brantley v. City of Gretna is a class action lawsuit filed in the 24th Judicial District Court of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana against the City of Gretna (the “City”) and its safety camera vendor, Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. in April 2016. The Company acquired Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. as part of its June 2021 purchase of Redflex Holdings Limited. The plaintiff class, which was certified on March 30, 2021, alleges that the City’s safety camera program was implemented and operated in violation of local ordinances and the state constitution, including that the City’s hearing process violated the plaintiffs’ due process rights for lack of a “neutral” arbiter of liability for traffic infractions. Plaintiffs seek recovery of traffic infraction fines paid. The City and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. appealed the trial court’s ruling granting class certification, which was denied and their petition for discretionary review of the certification ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court was declined. The parties entered into a settlement agreement and preliminary approval was granted by the court in April 2025. A final settlement amount has not yet been determined and requires final approval from the court.

PlusPass Inc. (“PlusPass”) v. Verra Mobility Corporation, et al. is a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, against Verra Mobility, The Gores Group LLC, Platinum Equity LLC and ATS Processing Services, Inc., in November 2020. In February 2024, Verra Mobility and PlusPass entered into a confidential business arrangement pursuant to which Verra Mobility (i) acquired certain assets from PlusPass and (ii) fully and finally resolved all litigation and disputes between the parties, including the payment of the settlement amount during the first quarter of 2024.