COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 9 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Royalty Agreements During 2016, Conversion Labs PR entered into a sole and exclusive license, royalty and advisory agreement with Pilaris Laboratories, LLC (“Pilaris”) relating to Pilaris’ PilarisMax shampoo formulation and conditioner. The term of the agreement will be the life of the US Patent held by Pilaris, ten years. As consideration for granting Conversion Labs PR this license, Pilaris will receive on quarterly basis, 10% of the net income collected by the licensed products based on the following formula: Net Income = total income – cost of goods sold – advertising and operating expenses directly related to the marketing of the licensed products. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, no amount was included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in regard to this agreement. During 2018, the Company entered into a license agreement (the “Alphabet Agreement”) with M.ALPHABET, LLC (“Alphabet”), pursuant to which Alphabet agreed to license its PURPUREX business which consists of methods and compositions developed by Alphabet for the treatment of purpura, bruising, post-procedural bruising, and traumatic bruising (the “Product Line”). Pursuant to the license granted under the Alphabet Agreement, Conversion Labs PR obtains an exclusive license to incorporate (i) any intellectual property rights related to the Product Line and (ii) all designs, drawings, formulas, chemical compositions and specifications used or useable in the Product Line into one or more products manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by Alphabet for the treatment of purpura, bruising, post-procedural bruising and traumatic bruising and for all other fields of use or purposes (the “Licensed Product(s)”), and to make, have made, advertise, promote, market, sell, import, export, use, offer to sell, and distribute the Licensed Product(s) throughout the world with the exception of China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Australia (the “License”). The Company shall pay Alphabet a royalty equal to 13% of Gross Receipts (as defined in the Agreement) realized from the sales of Licensed Products. No amounts were earned or owed as of December 31, 2021. Upon execution of the Alphabet Agreement, Alphabet was granted a 10-year stock option to purchase 20,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.50. Further, if Licensed Products have gross receipts of $7,500,000 in any calendar year, the Company will grant Alphabet an option to purchase 20,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.50; (ii) if Licensed Products have gross receipts of $10,000,000 in any calendar year, the Company will grant Alphabet an additional option to purchase 20,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.50 and (iii) if Licensed Products have gross receipts of $20,000,000 in any calendar year, the Company will grant Alphabet an option to purchase 40,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $3.75. The likelihood of meeting these performance goals for the licensed products are remote and, therefore, the Company has not recognized any compensation. Purchase Commitments Many of the Company’s vendors require product deposits when a purchase order is placed for goods or fulfillment services related to inventory requirements. The Company’s history of product deposits with its inventory vendors, creates an implicit purchase commitment equaling the total expected product acceptance cost in excess of the product deposit. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company approximates its implicit purchase commitments to be approximately $511 thousand and $1.6 million, respectively. Employment and Consulting Agreements The Company has entered into various agreements with officers, directors, employees and consultants that expire in terms of one to five years. See Note 10. Legal Matters In the normal course of business operations, the Company may become involved in various legal matters. As of December 31, 2021, other than as set forth below, the Company’s management does not believe that there are any potentially material pending legal proceedings. On April 16, 2021, a purported securities class action lawsuit, captioned David L. Owens, Sr. v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-03384, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, Justin Schreiber (LifeMD’s Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer), Juan Pinero Dagnery (LifeMD’s former Chief Financial Officer), and Marc Benathen (LifeMD’s current Chief Financial Officer) (the “Owens, Sr. Lawsuit”). The Owens, Sr. Complaint alleged among other things, that the defendants made false or misleading statements about, and allegedly failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning, the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint did not quantify damages but sought to recover damages on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired LifeMD’s common stock between January 19, 2021 and April 13, 2021. On May 18, 2021, the class action lawsuit filed against the Company was voluntarily dismissed. Similarly, on May 5, 2021, a second purported securities class action lawsuit, captioned Cho v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-04004, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same aforementioned parties (the “Cho Lawsuit”). The Cho Complaint made the same claims as found in the Owens, Sr. Lawsuit, and, similarly, did not quantify damages and sought to recover damages on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired LifeMD’s common stock during the same, aforementioned time period between January 19, 2021 and April 13, 2021. On May 19, 2021, the class action lawsuit filed against the Company was voluntarily dismissed. On June 7, 2021, a purported Americans with Disabilities class action lawsuit, captioned Sosa v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-05032, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Sosa Complaint alleged, inter alia, that the defendants’ www.rexmd.com had barriers making it inaccessible to the visually impaired needing the assistance of screen-reading software, and therefore, allegedly violated: (i) the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.; (ii) the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 292 and 296; and (iii) the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), §§ 8-102 and 8-107. The Complaint did not quantify damages but sought to recover compensatory damages, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, as well as punitive damages under the NYCHRL. The Complaint also sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. On September 20, 2021, the class action lawsuit filed against the Company was voluntarily dismissed. On December 10, 2021, a purported breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and fraud lawsuit, captioned Harborside Advisors LLC v. LifeMD, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-10593, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company. The Harborside Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company breached a Consulting Services Agreement dated as of June 5, 2019, and “Harborside was entitled to 1 million shares (i.e., 200,000 shares post 5-for-1 reverse stock split) in the Company if the Conversion Labs Rx business achieved a topline revenue of $10 million and an additional 1 million shares (i.e., 200,000 shares post 5-for-1 reverse stock split) for each additional $5 million in topline revenue up to a maximum of 5 million shares (i.e., 1,000,000 shares post 5-for-1 reverse stock split). The Complaint further alleges that the Company fraudulently induced Harborside to give up its ownership interest in Conversion Labs Rx and that it was a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and fraudulent for the Company to have dissolved Conversion Labs Rx. Consequently, alleges Harborside, the Company was unjustly enriched and is entitled to recover from the Company for quantum meruit. The Harborside Complaint implies between $5,020,000 and $33,020,000 in alleged damages related to failure to award the aforementioned stock but only specifically states that “Harborside has incurred damages in excess of $75,000, with the exact amount to be determined with specificity at trial” for each of the 5 counts. On February 11, 2022, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Harborside Complaint. Harborside’s opposition to the motion to dismiss is due on March 25, 2022, and the Company’s reply is due on April 4, 2022. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. As this action is in its preliminary phase, a potential loss cannot yet be estimated. On December 10, 2021, a purported breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and account stated lawsuit, captioned Specialty Medical Drugstore, LLC D/B/A GoGoMeds v. LifeMD, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-10599, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company. The GoGoMeds Complaint alleges, among other things, that Conversion Labs Rx breached a Strategic Partnership Agreement (dated May 27, 2019) (the “SPA”) by the Company not paying two invoices (#3269 and 3270) totaling $273,859, and, therefore, “LifeMD has been unjustly enriched in an amount in excess of $273,859, with the exact amount to be determined with specificity at trial.” Further, GoGoMeds alleges that “to the extent that the SPA is inapplicable, GoGoMeds is entitled to recover from LifeMD from quantum meruit” because “GoGoMeds conferred a benefit on LifeMD by fulfilling over 17,000 prescriptions and over the counter drug orders for LifeMD’s clients.” On February 11, 2022, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim to the GoGoMeds Complaint, pleading the affirmative defenses that the claims are barred, in whole or in part: (i) because they fail to state claims upon which relief can be granted; (ii) by breach of contract by plaintiff; (iii) by offset, recoupment, and/or unjust enrichment to plaintiff; (iv) by accord and satisfaction; (v) for failure of condition precedent; (vi) because adequate remedies at law exist; (vii) by failure to mitigate; (viii) by the doctrine of unclean hands; and (ix) by consent ratification, waiver, excuse, and/or estoppel, (x) as well as that attorney fees and costs, as well as special, indirect, incidental, and/or consequential damages are not recoverable. Further, the Company counterclaimed against GoGoMeds for: (a) breach of contract for failing to: (i) provide adequate customer service and related pharmacy services; (ii) charge LifeMD actual costs for prescription and over the counter drugs (including shipping); and (iii) provide regular reports and allow audits for review to establish adequate service and accurate costs; (b) trade secret misappropriation of the LifeMD Information, Data, and Materials, as defined therein; (c) unjust enrichment of GoGoMeds through its retention of such LifeMD Information, Data, and Materials, and for the benefit of the creation of the GoGoCare telehealth company; (d) conversion by GoGoMeds by exercising unauthorized dominion and control over the LifeMD Information, Data, and Materials; (e) detinue; and (f) an accounting. GoGoMeds’ response to the counterclaims is due on March 4, 2022. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. As this action is in its preliminary phase, a potential loss cannot yet be estimated. On February 28, 2022, a purported breach of contract lawsuit (with six counts of alleged breach, and indemnity reliance concerning reasonable costs and expenses), captioned William Blair LLC v. LifeMD, Inc., Case No. 2022L001978, was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Law Division against the Company. The Blair Complaint alleges, among other things, that LifeMD breached an engagement letter agreement entered into on January 7, 2021 with Blair that concerned potential debt financing. In particular, Blair alleges that the Company breached its obligations by, inter alia: (i) failing to advise Blair of, and ultimately completing, a debt financing transaction with a different investment banking firm on or about June 3, 2021; (ii) reproducing several pages from a Confidential Information Brochure used in the Company’s debt financing transaction with a different investment banking firm; (iii) failing to provide Blair with a right of first refusal to be its joint active bookrunning manager for a common stock sales agreement that it executed on or about June 3, 2021, through a different investment banking firm; (iv) failing to provide Blair with a right of first refusal to be its joint active bookrunning manager for a common stock sales agreement that it executed on or about September 28, 2021, through a different investment banking firm (despite the Company having formally terminated the engagement letter with Blair on or about July 16, 2021); (v) failing to provide Blair with a right of first refusal to be its joint active bookrunning manager for a preferred stock offering that it executed on or about September 28, 2021, through two different investment banking firms as bookrunning co-managers (despite the Company having formally terminated the engagement letter with Blair on or about July 16, 2021); and (vi) purchasing a convertible note from a pharmaceutical investor in connection with its acquisition of all outstanding shares of allergy telehealth platform, Cleared. The Blair Complaint seeks damages adequate to compensate Blair for the aforementioned alleged breaches (i.e., which implicitly meets or exceeds the purported $1,000,000 minimum fee in the engagement letter), as well as reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. As this action is in its preliminary phase, a potential loss cannot yet be estimated.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 9 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Royalty Agreements

During 2016, Conversion Labs PR entered into a sole and exclusive license, royalty and advisory agreement with Pilaris Laboratories, LLC (“Pilaris”) relating to Pilaris’ PilarisMax shampoo formulation and conditioner. The term of the agreement will be the life of the US Patent held by Pilaris, ten years. As consideration for granting Conversion Labs PR this license, Pilaris will receive on quarterly basis, 10% of the net income collected by the licensed products based on the following formula: Net Income = total income – cost of goods sold – advertising and operating expenses directly related to the marketing of the licensed products. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, no amount was included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in regard to this agreement.

During 2018, the Company entered into a license agreement (the “Alphabet Agreement”) with M.ALPHABET, LLC (“Alphabet”), pursuant to which Alphabet agreed to license its PURPUREX business which consists of methods and compositions developed by Alphabet for the treatment of purpura, bruising, post-procedural bruising, and traumatic bruising (the “Product Line”). Pursuant to the license granted under the Alphabet Agreement, Conversion Labs PR obtains an exclusive license to incorporate (i) any intellectual property rights related to the Product Line and (ii) all designs, drawings, formulas, chemical compositions and specifications used or useable in the Product Line into one or more products manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by Alphabet for the treatment of purpura, bruising, post-procedural bruising and traumatic bruising and for all other fields of use or purposes (the “Licensed Product(s)”), and to make, have made, advertise, promote, market, sell, import, export, use, offer to sell, and distribute the Licensed Product(s) throughout the world with the exception of China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Australia (the “License”). The Company shall pay Alphabet a royalty equal to 13% of Gross Receipts (as defined in the Agreement) realized from the sales of Licensed Products. No amounts were earned or owed as of December 31, 2021.

Upon execution of the Alphabet Agreement, Alphabet was granted a 10-year stock option to purchase 20,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.50. Further, if Licensed Products have gross receipts of $7,500,000 in any calendar year, the Company will grant Alphabet an option to purchase 20,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.50; (ii) if Licensed Products have gross receipts of $10,000,000 in any calendar year, the Company will grant Alphabet an additional option to purchase 20,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.50 and (iii) if Licensed Products have gross receipts of $20,000,000 in any calendar year, the Company will grant Alphabet an option to purchase 40,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $3.75. The likelihood of meeting these performance goals for the licensed products are remote and, therefore, the Company has not recognized any compensation.

Purchase Commitments

Many of the Company’s vendors require product deposits when a purchase order is placed for goods or fulfillment services related to inventory requirements. The Company’s history of product deposits with its inventory vendors, creates an implicit purchase commitment equaling the total expected product acceptance cost in excess of the product deposit. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company approximates its implicit purchase commitments to be approximately $511 thousand and $1.6 million, respectively.

Employment and Consulting Agreements

The Company has entered into various agreements with officers, directors, employees and consultants that expire in terms of one to five years. See Note 10.

Legal Matters

In the normal course of business operations, the Company may become involved in various legal matters. As of December 31, 2021, other than as set forth below, the Company’s management does not believe that there are any potentially material pending legal proceedings.

On April 16, 2021, a purported securities class action lawsuit, captioned David L. Owens, Sr. v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-03384, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, Justin Schreiber (LifeMD’s Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer), Juan Pinero Dagnery (LifeMD’s former Chief Financial Officer), and Marc Benathen (LifeMD’s current Chief Financial Officer) (the “Owens, Sr. Lawsuit”). The Owens, Sr. Complaint alleged among other things, that the defendants made false or misleading statements about, and allegedly failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning, the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint did not quantify damages but sought to recover damages on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired LifeMD’s common stock between January 19, 2021 and April 13, 2021. On May 18, 2021, the class action lawsuit filed against the Company was voluntarily dismissed.

Similarly, on May 5, 2021, a second purported securities class action lawsuit, captioned Cho v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-04004, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same aforementioned parties (the “Cho Lawsuit”). The Cho Complaint made the same claims as found in the Owens, Sr. Lawsuit, and, similarly, did not quantify damages and sought to recover damages on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired LifeMD’s common stock during the same, aforementioned time period between January 19, 2021 and April 13, 2021. On May 19, 2021, the class action lawsuit filed against the Company was voluntarily dismissed.

On June 7, 2021, a purported Americans with Disabilities class action lawsuit, captioned Sosa v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-05032, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Sosa Complaint alleged, inter alia, that the defendants’ www.rexmd.com had barriers making it inaccessible to the visually impaired needing the assistance of screen-reading software, and therefore, allegedly violated: (i) the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.; (ii) the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 292 and 296; and (iii) the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), §§ 8-102 and 8-107. The Complaint did not quantify damages but sought to recover compensatory damages, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, as well as punitive damages under the NYCHRL. The Complaint also sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. On September 20, 2021, the class action lawsuit filed against the Company was voluntarily dismissed.

On December 10, 2021, a purported breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and fraud lawsuit, captioned Harborside Advisors LLC v. LifeMD, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-10593, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company. The Harborside Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company breached a Consulting Services Agreement dated as of June 5, 2019, and “Harborside was entitled to 1 million shares (i.e., 200,000 shares post 5-for-1 reverse stock split) in the Company if the Conversion Labs Rx business achieved a topline revenue of $10 million and an additional 1 million shares (i.e., 200,000 shares post 5-for-1 reverse stock split) for each additional $5 million in topline revenue up to a maximum of 5 million shares (i.e., 1,000,000 shares post 5-for-1 reverse stock split). The Complaint further alleges that the Company fraudulently induced Harborside to give up its ownership interest in Conversion Labs Rx and that it was a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and fraudulent for the Company to have dissolved Conversion Labs Rx. Consequently, alleges Harborside, the Company was unjustly enriched and is entitled to recover from the Company for quantum meruit. The Harborside Complaint implies between $5,020,000 and $33,020,000 in alleged damages related to failure to award the aforementioned stock but only specifically states that “Harborside has incurred damages in excess of $75,000, with the exact amount to be determined with specificity at trial” for each of the 5 counts. On February 11, 2022, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Harborside Complaint. Harborside’s opposition to the motion to dismiss is due on March 25, 2022, and the Company’s reply is due on April 4, 2022. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. As this action is in its preliminary phase, a potential loss cannot yet be estimated.

On December 10, 2021, a purported breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and account stated lawsuit, captioned Specialty Medical Drugstore, LLC D/B/A GoGoMeds v. LifeMD, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-10599, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company. The GoGoMeds Complaint alleges, among other things, that Conversion Labs Rx breached a Strategic Partnership Agreement (dated May 27, 2019) (the “SPA”) by the Company not paying two invoices (#3269 and 3270) totaling $273,859, and, therefore, “LifeMD has been unjustly enriched in an amount in excess of $273,859, with the exact amount to be determined with specificity at trial.” Further, GoGoMeds alleges that “to the extent that the SPA is inapplicable, GoGoMeds is entitled to recover from LifeMD from quantum meruit” because “GoGoMeds conferred a benefit on LifeMD by fulfilling over 17,000 prescriptions and over the counter drug orders for LifeMD’s clients.” On February 11, 2022, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim to the GoGoMeds Complaint, pleading the affirmative defenses that the claims are barred, in whole or in part: (i) because they fail to state claims upon which relief can be granted; (ii) by breach of contract by plaintiff; (iii) by offset, recoupment, and/or unjust enrichment to plaintiff; (iv) by accord and satisfaction; (v) for failure of condition precedent; (vi) because adequate remedies at law exist; (vii) by failure to mitigate; (viii) by the doctrine of unclean hands; and (ix) by consent ratification, waiver, excuse, and/or estoppel, (x) as well as that attorney fees and costs, as well as special, indirect, incidental, and/or consequential damages are not recoverable. Further, the Company counterclaimed against GoGoMeds for: (a) breach of contract for failing to: (i) provide adequate customer service and related pharmacy services; (ii) charge LifeMD actual costs for prescription and over the counter drugs (including shipping); and (iii) provide regular reports and allow audits for review to establish adequate service and accurate costs; (b) trade secret misappropriation of the LifeMD Information, Data, and Materials, as defined therein; (c) unjust enrichment of GoGoMeds through its retention of such LifeMD Information, Data, and Materials, and for the benefit of the creation of the GoGoCare telehealth company; (d) conversion by GoGoMeds by exercising unauthorized dominion and control over the LifeMD Information, Data, and Materials; (e) detinue; and (f) an accounting. GoGoMeds’ response to the counterclaims is due on March 4, 2022. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. As this action is in its preliminary phase, a potential loss cannot yet be estimated.

On February 28, 2022, a purported breach of contract lawsuit (with six counts of alleged breach, and indemnity reliance concerning reasonable costs and expenses), captioned William Blair LLC v. LifeMD, Inc., Case No. 2022L001978, was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Law Division against the Company. The Blair Complaint alleges, among other things, that LifeMD breached an engagement letter agreement entered into on January 7, 2021 with Blair that concerned potential debt financing. In particular, Blair alleges that the Company breached its obligations by, inter alia: (i) failing to advise Blair of, and ultimately completing, a debt financing transaction with a different investment banking firm on or about June 3, 2021; (ii) reproducing several pages from a Confidential Information Brochure used in the Company’s debt financing transaction with a different investment banking firm; (iii) failing to provide Blair with a right of first refusal to be its joint active bookrunning manager for a common stock sales agreement that it executed on or about June 3, 2021, through a different investment banking firm; (iv) failing to provide Blair with a right of first refusal to be its joint active bookrunning manager for a common stock sales agreement that it executed on or about September 28, 2021, through a different investment banking firm (despite the Company having formally terminated the engagement letter with Blair on or about July 16, 2021); (v) failing to provide Blair with a right of first refusal to be its joint active bookrunning manager for a preferred stock offering that it executed on or about September 28, 2021, through two different investment banking firms as bookrunning co-managers (despite the Company having formally terminated the engagement letter with Blair on or about July 16, 2021); and (vi) purchasing a convertible note from a pharmaceutical investor in connection with its acquisition of all outstanding shares of allergy telehealth platform, Cleared. The Blair Complaint seeks damages adequate to compensate Blair for the aforementioned alleged breaches (i.e., which implicitly meets or exceeds the purported $1,000,000 minimum fee in the engagement letter), as well as reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. As this action is in its preliminary phase, a potential loss cannot yet be estimated.