Commitments and Contingencies |
9 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Sep. 30, 2016 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies Minimum Guarantees - Content Acquisition Costs
Certain of our content acquisition agreements contain minimum guarantees, and require that we make upfront minimum guarantee payments. As of September 30, 2016, we have future minimum guarantee commitments of $780.1 million, of which $18.1 million will be paid in the three months ended December 31, 2016, $354.9 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 on a non-straight line basis.
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 April 17, 2014, UMG Recordings, Inc., Sony Music Entertainment, Capitol Records, LLC, Warner Music Group Corp. and ABKCO Music and Records, Inc. filed suit against Pandora Media Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The complaint claims common law copyright infringement and unfair competition arising from allegations that Pandora owes royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972.
In October 2015, the parties reached an agreement ("pre-1972 settlement") whereby we agreed to pay the plaintiffs a total of $90 million. The settlement resolves all past claims as to our use of pre-1972 recordings owned or controlled by the plaintiffs and enables us, without any additional payment, to reproduce, perform and broadcast such recordings in the United States through December 31, 2016. This agreement was approved by our board of directors and executed on October 21, 2015. Pursuant to this settlement, we paid the plaintiffs $60 million in October 2015 and the plaintiffs dismissed the case with prejudice. As a result, cost of revenue - content acquisition costs increased by $65.4 million in the twelve months ended December 31, 2015, of which $57.9 million was related to a one-time cumulative charge to cost of revenue - content acquisition costs related to pre-1972 spins played through September 30, 2015. The remaining charge of $24.6 million will be recorded in cost of revenue - content acquisition costs in 2016 based on the allocation of pre-1972 listening throughout the remainder of the settlement period. The pre-72 settlement further required that we make four additional installment payments of $7.5 million each. The first was paid in December 2015, the second was paid in March 2016, the third was paid in June 2016 and the final installment was paid in September 2016.
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. This motion was denied, and we have appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, the district court litigation has been stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's review. The Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral argument on December 8, 2016.
On September 14, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al. filed a class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges common law misappropriation, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of California rights of publicity arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On October 28, 2015, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the district court action pending the Ninth Circuit’s review of Pandora’s appeal in Flo & Eddie et al. v. Pandora Media, Inc., which involves similar allegations.
On September 16, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al. filed a second class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation of New York right of publicity, unfair competition and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On October 28, 2015 the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the district court action pending the Second Circuit’s review of Sirius XM’s appeal in the Flo & Eddie et al. v. Sirius XM matter, which involves similar allegations.
On October 17, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al. filed a third class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, conversion, and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 29, 2015, Pandora filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay the case pending the Second Circuit’s decision. The motion to stay was denied, and the motion to dismiss remains pending.
On October 19, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al. filed a fourth class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 29, 2015, Pandora filed a motion to dismiss and motion to stay the case pending the Second Circuit’s decision. On March 16, 2016, the district court granted the motion to stay. The motion to dismiss remains pending.
On September 7, 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One et al. filed a class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation of the California Civil Code, misappropriation, unfair business practices and conversion arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On October 5, 2016, the district court transferred the case to the federal district court for the Northern District of California. On October 21, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the district court action pending the Ninth Circuit’s review of Pandora’s appeal in Flo & Eddie et al. v. Pandora Media, Inc., which involves similar allegations.
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. In particular, rate court proceedings could take years to complete, could be very costly and may result in current and past rates for content acquisition costs that are materially less favorable than rates we currently pay or have paid in the past.
Indemnification Agreements, Guarantees and Contingencies
In the ordinary course of business, 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 are accounted for in accordance with guarantor’s accounting and disclosure requirements for guarantees, including indirect guarantees of indebtedness of others. To date, we have not incurred, do not anticipate incurring and therefore have not accrued for, any costs related to such indemnification provisions.
|