Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 3 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Settlement and Legal Except as may be set forth below, we are not a party to any legal proceedings, and we are not aware of any claims or actions pending or threatened against us. In the future, we might from time to time become involved in litigation relating to claims arising from our ordinary course of business, the resolution of which we do not anticipate would have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. On November 13, 2018, two founders of the Company (the “Claimant Founders”), initiated two lawsuits in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (“SFSC”), entitled Nathaniel Farber v. HyreCar Inc., Case No. CGC-18-571257 and Josiah Larkin v. HyreCar Inc., Case No. CGC-18-571258. The complaints for the lawsuits, which were largely duplicative, alleged that the Company breached a Settlement Agreement by and between the Company and the Claimant Founders by not allowing the Claimant Founders to sell stock in the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”), failing to buyback Claimant Founders’ stock at the time of the IPO, allowing the issuance of certain stock without proportionately increasing the stock ownership of Claimant Founders, and not providing certain required information to the Claimant Founders. The Company strongly disagreed with all of the allegations and vigorously contested both lawsuits. The Company believe that, at all times, its actions were consistent with the terms, conditions, and context of the Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law. Pursuant to a motion brought by the Company, the two lawsuits were joined for pretrial and trial purposes. As the case progressed, the Claimant Founders narrowed their allegations significantly. Mr. Larkin dismissed all of his claims. Mr. Farber dismissed all of his allegations except for an allegation that the Company failed to buyback the Claimant Founders’ stock at the time of the IPO. The Company believed that the remaining claim was without merit, but without admitting fault agreed to settle any and all claims between the Claimant Founders and the Company. As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to issue 78,431 shares of the Company’s common stock to Mr. Farber at an agreed upon value of $200,000 (the “Settlement Payment”). In addition, the Company entered into general mutual releases with each Claimant Founder. Other In November 2017, the Company entered into a lease in Los Angeles, California commencing April 1, 2018, with the ability to occupy the facility in January 2018. The lease term is 39 months from the commencement date. Annual base rent is as follows: 2020 - $356,145, 2021 - $183,489, respectively. The lease required a deposit of $90,000. Per the lease agreement, the monthly rate will range from $27,708 to $31,167 a month prior to discounts and abatements that may apply. The Company also rents office furniture and incurs ancillary fees for building services and shared expenses. Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 was $274,280 and $274,969, respectively. We connect drivers and vehicle owners in many tax jurisdictions throughout the United States. After the Supreme Court of the United States decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. (Wayfair) in June 2018, states commenced enacting laws that would require certain online sellers to collect sales and use tax despite not having a physical presence in the buyer’s state. In response to Wayfair, or otherwise, states or local governments may adopt, or begin to enforce, laws requiring us to calculate, collect, and remit taxes on sales in their jurisdictions. A successful assertion by one or more states requiring us to collect taxes could result in tax liabilities, including taxes on past sales, as well as penalties and interest. Based on our analysis of certain state regulations on peer-to-peer activities, we do not believe risk of loss is probable on historical revenue activities. We continuously monitor state regulations as it relates to peer-to-peer vehicle rental activities and will implement required collection and remittance procedures if and when we believe we would become subject to such regulations.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 3 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Settlement and Legal

Except as may be set forth below, we are not a party to any legal proceedings, and we are not aware of any claims or actions pending or threatened against us. In the future, we might from time to time become involved in litigation relating to claims arising from our ordinary course of business, the resolution of which we do not anticipate would have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On November 13, 2018, two founders of the Company (the “Claimant Founders”), initiated two lawsuits in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (“SFSC”), entitled Nathaniel Farber v. HyreCar Inc., Case No. CGC-18-571257 and Josiah Larkin v. HyreCar Inc., Case No. CGC-18-571258. The complaints for the lawsuits, which were largely duplicative, alleged that the Company breached a Settlement Agreement by and between the Company and the Claimant Founders by not allowing the Claimant Founders to sell stock in the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”), failing to buyback Claimant Founders’ stock at the time of the IPO, allowing the issuance of certain stock without proportionately increasing the stock ownership of Claimant Founders, and not providing certain required information to the Claimant Founders. The Company strongly disagreed with all of the allegations and vigorously contested both lawsuits. The Company believe that, at all times, its actions were consistent with the terms, conditions, and context of the Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law. Pursuant to a motion brought by the Company, the two lawsuits were joined for pretrial and trial purposes. As the case progressed, the Claimant Founders narrowed their allegations significantly. Mr. Larkin dismissed all of his claims. Mr. Farber dismissed all of his allegations except for an allegation that the Company failed to buyback the Claimant Founders’ stock at the time of the IPO. The Company believed that the remaining claim was without merit, but without admitting fault agreed to settle any and all claims between the Claimant Founders and the Company. As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to issue 78,431 shares of the Company’s common stock to Mr. Farber at an agreed upon value of $200,000 (the “Settlement Payment”). In addition, the Company entered into general mutual releases with each Claimant Founder.

Other

In November 2017, the Company entered into a lease in Los Angeles, California commencing April 1, 2018, with the ability to occupy the facility in January 2018. The lease term is 39 months from the commencement date. Annual base rent is as follows: 2020 - $356,145, 2021 - $183,489, respectively. The lease required a deposit of $90,000. Per the lease agreement, the monthly rate will range from $27,708 to $31,167 a month prior to discounts and abatements that may apply. The Company also rents office furniture and incurs ancillary fees for building services and shared expenses. Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 was $274,280 and $274,969, respectively.

We connect drivers and vehicle owners in many tax jurisdictions throughout the United States. After the Supreme Court of the United States decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. (Wayfair) in June 2018, states commenced enacting laws that would require certain online sellers to collect sales and use tax despite not having a physical presence in the buyer’s state. In response to Wayfair, or otherwise, states or local governments may adopt, or begin to enforce, laws requiring us to calculate, collect, and remit taxes on sales in their jurisdictions. A successful assertion by one or more states requiring us to collect taxes could result in tax liabilities, including taxes on past sales, as well as penalties and interest. Based on our analysis of certain state regulations on peer-to-peer activities, we do not believe risk of loss is probable on historical revenue activities. We continuously monitor state regulations as it relates to peer-to-peer vehicle rental activities and will implement required collection and remittance procedures if and when we believe we would become subject to such regulations.