Commitments and Contingencies |
9 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Sep. 30, 2017 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies Minimum Guarantees and Other Provisions—Content Acquisition Costs
Certain of our content acquisition agreements contain minimum guarantees, and require that we make upfront minimum guarantee payments. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, we prepaid $111.5 million and $257.3 million in content acquisition costs related to minimum guarantees, which were offset by amortization of prepaid content acquisition costs of $31.3 million and $177.2 million. As of September 30, 2017, we have future minimum guarantee commitments of $472.5 million, of which $65.0 million will be paid in 2017 and the remainder will be paid thereafter. On a quarterly basis, we record the greater of the cumulative actual content acquisition costs incurred or the cumulative minimum guarantee based on forecasted usage for the minimum guarantee period. The minimum guarantee period is the period of time that the minimum guarantee relates to, as specified in each agreement, which may be annual or a longer period. The cumulative minimum guarantee, based on forecasted usage considers factors such as listening hours, revenue, subscribers and other terms of each agreement that impact our expected attainment or recoupment of the minimum guarantees based on the relative attribution method.
Several of our content acquisition agreements also include provisions related to the royalty payments and structures of those agreements relative to other content licensing arrangements, which, if triggered, could cause our payments under those agreements to escalate. In addition, record labels, publishers and PROs with whom we have entered into direct license agreements have the right to audit our content acquisition payments, and any such audit could result in disputes over whether we have paid the proper content acquisition costs. However, as of September 30, 2017, we do not believe it is probable that these provisions of our agreements discussed above will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Legal Proceedings
We have been in the past, and continue to be, a party to various legal proceedings, which have consumed, and may continue to consume, financial and managerial resources. We record a liability when we believe that it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Our management periodically evaluates developments that could affect the amount, if any, of liability that we have previously accrued and make adjustments as appropriate. Determining both the likelihood and the estimated amount of a loss requires significant judgment, and management’s judgment may be incorrect. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of any pending legal matters is likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Pre-1972 copyright litigation
On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit against Pandora Media Inc. in the federal district court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California’s Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court litigation is currently stayed pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision. On December 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on the Anti-SLAPP motion. On March 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The California Supreme Court has accepted certification and the Company filed its opening brief on August 4, 2017.
Between September 14, 2015 and October 19, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan filed separate class action suits against the Company in the federal district courts for the Northern District of California and the District of New Jersey. The complaints allege a variety of violations of common law and state copyright statutes, common law misappropriation, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of rights of publicity arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. The actions in California and New Jersey are currently stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.
On September 7, 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One et al. filed a class action suit against the Company alleging claims similar to that of Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media Inc. The action is currently stayed in the Northern District of California pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.
The outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain. Except as noted above, we do not believe it is probable that the final outcome of the matters discussed above will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows; however, in light of the uncertainties involved in such matters, there can be no assurance that the outcome of each case or the costs of litigation, regardless of outcome, will not have a material adverse effect on our business.
Indemnification Agreements, Guarantees and Contingencies
In the ordinary course of business and in connection with the sale of Ticketfly, we are party to certain contractual agreements under which we may provide indemnifications of varying scope, terms and duration to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements, services to be provided by us or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with directors and certain officers and employees that will require us, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors, officers or employees. Such indemnification provisions, other than the Ticketfly indemnifications, are accounted for in accordance with guarantor’s accounting and disclosure requirements for guarantees, including indirect guarantees of indebtedness of others. In connection with the sale of Ticketfly, we have accrued approximately $5.1 million related to these indemnifications, which is the probable indemnification liability as estimated in accordance with the accounting guidance for loss contingencies. Other than this amount, to date, we have not incurred, do not anticipate incurring and therefore have not accrued for, any costs related to such indemnification provisions.
|