COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

We have entered into non-cancellable operating, capital, and finance leases for equipment and office, fulfillment, sortation, delivery, and data center facilities. Rental expense under operating lease agreements was $961 million, $759 million, and $561 million for 2014, 2013, and 2012.

The following summarizes our principal contractual commitments, excluding open orders for purchases that support normal operations, as of December 31, 2014 (in millions):



	Year Ended December 31,
	2015		2016		2017		2018		2019		Thereafter		Total
Operating and capital commitments:
Debt principal and interest	$	1,842	$	323	$	1,322	$	310	$	1,272	$	9,403	$	14,472
Capital leases, including interest	2,060		1,727		1,030		178		89		98		5,182
Finance lease obligations, including interest	110		112		115		117		119		1,056		1,629
Operating leases	868		791		728		634		549		2,343		5,913
Unconditional purchase obligations (1)	489		435		351		118		38		3		1,434
Other commitments (2) (3)	928		333		160		140		90		845		2,496
Total commitments	$	6,297	$	3,721	$	3,706	$	1,497	$	2,157	$	13,748	$	31,126

___________________

(1)

Includes unconditional purchase obligations related to long-term agreements to acquire and license digital content that are not reflected on the consolidated balance sheets. For those agreements with variable terms, we do not estimate the total obligation beyond any minimum quantities and/or pricing as of the reporting date. Purchase obligations associated with renewal provisions solely at the option of the content provider are included to the extent such commitments are fixed or a minimum amount is specified.


(2)	Includes the estimated timing and amounts of payments for rent and tenant improvements associated with build-to-suit lease arrangements that have not been placed in service and media content liabilities associated with long-term media content assets with initial terms greater than one year.


(3)	Excludes $710 million of tax contingencies for which we cannot make a reasonably reliable estimate of the amount and period of payment, if any.

Pledged Assets

As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, we have pledged or otherwise restricted $602 million and $482 million of our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities, and certain property and equipment as collateral for standby and trade letters of credit, guarantees, debt relating to certain international operations, real estate leases, and amounts due to third-party sellers in certain jurisdictions.

Suppliers

During 2014, no vendor accounted for 10% or more of our purchases. We generally do not have long-term contracts or arrangements with our vendors to guarantee the availability of merchandise, particular payment terms, or the extension of credit limits.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved from time to time in claims, proceedings, and litigation, including the following:

In November 2007, an Austrian copyright collection society, Austro-Mechana, filed lawsuits against Amazon.com International Sales, Inc., Amazon EU Sarl, Amazon.de GmbH, Amazon.com GmbH, and Amazon Logistik in the Commercial Court of Vienna, Austria and in the District Court of Munich, Germany seeking to collect a tariff on blank digital media sold by our EU-based retail websites to customers located in Austria. In July 2008, the German court stayed the German case pending a final decision in the Austrian case. In July 2010, the Austrian court ruled in favor of Austro-Mechana and ordered us to report all sales of products to which the tariff potentially applies for a determination of damages. We contested Austro-Mechana’s claim and in September 2010 commenced an appeal in the Commercial Court of Vienna. We lost this appeal and in March 2011 commenced an appeal in the Supreme Court of Austria. In October 2011, the Austrian Supreme Court referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In July 2013, the European Court of Justice ruled that EU law does not preclude application of the tariff where certain conditions are met and directed the case back to the Austrian Supreme Court for further proceedings. In October 2013, the Austrian Supreme Court referred the case back to the Commercial Court of Vienna for further fact finding to determine whether the tariff on blank digital media meets the conditions set by the ECJ. In December 2012, a German copyright collection society, Zentralstelle für private Überspielungsrechte (ZPU), filed a complaint against Amazon EU Sarl, Amazon Media EU Sarl, Amazon Services Europe Sarl, Amazon Payments Europe SCA, Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS, and Amazon Eurasia Holdings Sarl in the District Court of Luxembourg seeking to collect a tariff on blank digital media sold by the Amazon.de retail website to customers located in Germany. In January 2013, a Belgian copyright collection society, AUVIBEL, filed a complaint against Amazon EU Sarl in the Court of First Instance of Brussels, Belgium, seeking to collect a tariff on blank digital media sold by the Amazon.fr retail website to customers located in Belgium. In November 2013, the Belgian court ruled in favor of AUVIBEL and ordered us to report all sales of products to which the tariff potentially applies for a determination of damages. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters.

In May 2009, Big Baboon, Inc. filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Payments, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our third-party selling and payments technology infringes patents owned by Big Baboon, Inc. purporting to cover an “Integrated Business-to-Business Web Commerce And Business Automation System” (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,115,690 and 6,343,275) and seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. In February 2011, the Court entered an order staying the lawsuit pending the outcome of the Patent and Trademark Office’s re-examination of the patent. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In April 2011, Walker Digital LLC filed several complaints against Amazon.com, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints allege that we infringe several of the plaintiff’s U.S. patents by, among other things, providing “cross benefits” to customers through our promotions (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,831,470 and 7,827,056), using a customer’s identified original product to offer a substitute product (U.S. Patent No. 7,236,942), using our product recommendations and personalization features to offer complementary products together (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,601,036 and 6,138,105), enabling customers to subscribe to a delivery schedule for products they routinely use at reduced prices (U.S. Patent No. 5,970,470), and offering personalized advertising based on customers’ preferences identified using a data pattern (U.S. Patent No. 7,933,893). Another complaint, filed in the same court in October 2011, alleges that we infringe plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. 8,041,711 by offering personalized advertising based on customer preferences that associate data with resource locators. Another complaint, filed in the same court in February 2012, alleges that we infringe plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. 8,112,359 by using product information received from customers to identify and offer substitute products using a manufacturer database. In January 2013, the plaintiff filed another complaint in the same court alleging that we infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,381,582 by allowing customers to make local payments for products ordered online. All of the complaints seek monetary damages, interest, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. In March 2013, the complaints asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 7,236,942 and 7,933,893 were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. In April 2013, the case asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,041,711 was stayed pending final resolution of the reexamination of that patent. In June 2013, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 7,831,470, 7,827,056, and 8,112,359 for lack of standing. In July 2013, we filed motions seeking entry of a final judgment dismissing those claims with prejudice and for attorneys’ fees, and plaintiff filed notices of appeal from the June 2013 order granting the motions to dismiss. In October 2013, the court ruled that its dismissals are with prejudice, and Walker has appealed those rulings. In March 2014, the court stayed the case asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 6,601,036 and 6,138,105 pending the appeal of the cases asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 7,831,470, 7,827,056, and 8,112,359. In September 2014, the court dismissed the matter asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,381,582 with prejudice. In January 2015, the court dismissed with prejudice the complaint asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,041,711, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaints asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 7,831,470, 7,827,056, and 8,112,359. We dispute the remaining allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters.

In March 2012, OIP Technologies, Inc. filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged, among other things, that certain aspects of our pricing methods infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,970,713, entitled “Method And Apparatus For Automatic Pricing In Electronic Commerce.” The complaint sought three times an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys’ fees, and interest. In September 2012, the court invalidated the plaintiff’s patent and dismissed the case with prejudice. In September 2012, OIP appealed the judgment of the district court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which, in November 2012, stayed all proceedings pending its decision in a separate case that raises a related question of law and, in June 2013, continued the stay pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court. In July 2014, the court of appeals lifted the stay. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In June 2012, Hand Held Products, Inc., a subsidiary of Honeywell, filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc., AMZN Mobile, LLC, AmazonFresh, LLC, A9.com, Inc., A9 Innovations, LLC, and Quidsi, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the use of mobile barcode reader applications, including Amazon Mobile, Amazon Price Check, Flow, and AmazonFresh, infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,015,088, entitled “Decoding Of Real Time Video Imaging.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, and an injunction. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In July 2012, Norman Blagman filed a purported class-action complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. for copyright infringement in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Amazon.com, Inc. sells digital music in our Amazon MP3 Store obtained from defendant Orchard Enterprises and other unnamed “digital music aggregators” without obtaining mechanical licenses for the compositions embodied in that music. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and interest. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In August 2012, an Australian quasi-government entity named Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the sale of “products which are operable according to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) 802.11a, g, n, and/or draft n standards” infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069, entitled “Wireless LAN.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In November 2012, Lexington Luminance LLC filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Digital Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain light-emitting diodes in certain Kindle devices infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,936,851, entitled “Semiconductor Light-Emitting Device And Method For Manufacturing Same.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and an injunction or, in the absence of an injunction, a compulsory ongoing royalty. In March 2014, the Court invalidated the plaintiff’s patent and dismissed the case with prejudice, and the plaintiff appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In May 2013, Adaptix, Inc. filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain Kindle devices infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,212 and 6,947,748, both entitled “OFDMA With Adaptive Subcarrier-Cluster Configuration And Selective Loading.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. In March 2014, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In July 2013, Telebuyer, LLC filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, LLC, and VADATA, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain features used on our retail website—including high resolution video and still images, user-indicated areas of interest, targeted follow-up communications, vendor proposals, on-line chat, Gold Box and Lightning Deals, and vendor ratings—infringe seven U.S. patents: Nos. 6,323,894, 7,835,508, 7,835,509, 7,839,984, 8,059,796, and 8,098,272, all entitled “Commercial Product Routing System With Video Vending Capability,” and 8,315,364, entitled “Commercial Product Routing System With Mobile Wireless And Video Vending Capability.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, and injunctive relief. In September 2013, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In August 2013, Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain Kindle devices infringe U.S. Patent Nos.: 6,819,923, entitled “Method For Communication Of Neighbor Cell Information”; 7,215,962, entitled “Method For An Intersystem Connection Handover”; 7,941,174, entitled “Method For Multicode Transmission By A Subscriber Station”; and 8,055,820 entitled “Apparatus, System, And Method For Designating A Buffer Status Reporting Format Based On Detected Pre-Selected Buffer Conditions.” In March 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that alleges, among other things, that certain Kindle devices infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,055,820, entitled “Apparatus, System, And Method For Designating A Buffer Status Reporting Format Based On Detected Pre-Selected Buffer Conditions.” The amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and interest. In January 2015, the court dismissed with prejudice the claim of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,215,962. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

Beginning in August 2013, a number of complaints were filed alleging, among other things, that Amazon.com, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries failed to compensate hourly workers for time spent waiting in security lines and otherwise violated federal and state wage and hour statutes and common law. In August 2013, Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and Vance v. Amazon.com, Inc., Zappos.com Inc., another affiliate of Amazon.com, Inc., and Kelly Services, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. In September 2013, Allison v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and Johnson v. Amazon.com, Inc. and an affiliate of Amazon.com, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. In October 2013, Davis v. Amazon.com, Inc., an affiliate of Amazon.com, Inc., and Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The plaintiffs variously purport to represent a nationwide class of certain current and former employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or state-law-based subclasses for certain current and former employees in states including Arizona, California, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Nevada, and one complaint asserts nationwide breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The complaints seek an unspecified amount of damages, interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. We have been named in several other similar cases. In December 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Busk that time spent waiting for and undergoing security screening is not compensable working time under the federal wage and hour statute. We dispute any remaining allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters.

In September 2013, Personalized Media Communications, LLC filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the use of certain Kindle devices, Kindle apps and/or Amazon.com, Inc.’s website to purchase and receive electronic media infringes nine U.S. Patents: Nos. 5,887,243, 7,801,304, 7,805,749, 7,940,931, 7,769,170, 7,864,956, 7,827,587, 8,046,791, and 7,883,252, all entitled “Signal Processing Apparatus And Methods.” The complaint also alleges, among other things, that CloudFront, S3, and EC2 web services infringe three of those patents, Nos. 7,801,304, 7,864,956, and 7,827,587. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, and injunctive relief. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In October 2013, Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our network operation centers and our mobile devices, such as Kindle Fire models based on the Android operating system that provide XMPP-compliant messaging services and applications, infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,809,428, entitled “Method And Device For Processing Undelivered Data Messages In A Two-Way Wireless Communications System.” The complaint also alleges that Amazon’s mobile devices infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,754,946, entitled “Nationwide Communication System,” and that Amazon.com, Inc. infringes U.S. Patent No. 5,786,748, entitled “Method And Apparatus For Giving Notification Of Express Mail Delivery,” by providing tracking and notification services to customers who purchase products directly from Amazon.com, Inc. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and injunctive relief. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In October 2013, Tuxis Technologies, LLC filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for District of Delaware. The complaint alleges, among other things, that “the Amazon.com website” with “recommendation features” infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,055,513, entitled “Methods And Apparatus For Intelligent Selection Of Goods And Services In Telephonic And Electronic Commerce.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In November 2013, Memory Integrity, LLC filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain Kindle devices infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,296,121, entitled “Reducing Probe Traffic In Multiprocessor Systems.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, costs, expenses, and interest. In December 2014, the case was stayed pending resolution of review petitions filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In November 2013, Vantage Point Technology, Inc. filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Kindle devices with a Cortex A-9 core processor and OMAP 4430 chipset, Kindle device HD tablets with a Cortex A-9 core processor and OMAP 4470 chipset, and Kindle devices with a Cortex A-8 core processor and Freescale MX50 family chipset infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,463,750, entitled “Method And Apparatus For Translating Virtual Addresses In A Data Processing System Having Multiple Instruction Pipelines And Separate TLB’s For Each Pipeline.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, enhanced damages, costs, and interest. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In December 2013, Appistry, Inc. filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Amazon’s Elastic Compute Cloud infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 8,200,746, entitled “System And Method For Territory-Based Processing Of Information,” and 8,341,209, entitled “System And Method For Processing Information Via Networked Computers Including Request Handlers, Process Handlers, And Task Handlers.” The complaint seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, treble damages, costs, and interest. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In December 2013, ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain digital rights management software used by various Kindle Fire software applications, including the Kindle Reader and Amazon Instant Video, infringe seven U.S. Patents: Nos. 6,963,859, entitled “Content Rendering Repository”; 7,523,072, entitled “System For Controlling The Distribution And Use Of Digital Works”; 7,269,576, entitled “Content Rendering Apparatus”; 8,370,956, entitled “System And Method For Rendering Digital Content In Accordance With Usage Rights Information”; 8,393,007, entitled “System And Method For Distributing Digital Content In Accordance With Usage Rights Information”; 7,225,160, entitled “Digital Works Having Usage Rights And Method For Creating The Same”; and 8,583,556, entitled “Method For Providing A Digital Asset For Distribution.” In January 2014, ContentGuard filed an amended complaint that, among other things, added HTC Corporation and HTC America as defendants. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, an injunction, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In March 2014, Kaavo, Inc. filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Amazon Web Services’ Elastic Beanstalk and CloudFormation infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,271,974, entitled “Cloud Computing Lifecycle Management For N-Tier Applications.” The complaint seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, costs, and interest. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In April 2014, Spansion LLC filed complaints for patent infringement against Amazon.com, Inc. in both the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and the United States International Trade Commission. The complaints allege, among other things, that certain Kindle devices infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,246,611, entitled “System For Erasing A Memory Cell,” and 6,744,666, entitled “Method And System To Minimize Page Programming Time For Flash Memory Devices.” The district court complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and injunctive relief. The International Trade Commission complaint seeks an exclusion order preventing the importation of certain Kindle devices into the United States, as well as a cease-and-desist order barring sale of certain Kindle devices after importation. In June 2014, the district court case was stayed pending resolution of the International Trade Commission action. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters.

In June 2014, SimpleAir, Inc. filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Amazon Device Messaging and Simple Notification Service infringe U.S Patent Nos. 7,035,914, 8,090,803, 8,572,279, 8,601,154, and 8,639,838, all of which are entitled “System and Method for Transmission of Data.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, pre-judgment interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, enhanced damages, and injunctive relief. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In December 2014, Smartflash LLC and Smartflash Technologies Limited filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com, LLC, AMZN Mobile, LLC, Amazon Web Services, Inc. and Audible, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Amazon Appstore, Amazon Instant Video, Amazon Music, Audible Audiobooks, the Amazon Mobile Ad Network, certain Kindle and Fire devices, Kindle e-bookstore, Amazon’s proprietary Android operating system, and the servers involved in operating Amazon Appstore, Amazon Instant Video, Amazon Music, the Fire TV app, Audible Audiobooks, Cloud Drive, Cloud Player, Amazon Web Services, and Amazon Mobile Ad Network infringe seven related U.S. Patents: Nos. 7,334,720; 7,942,317; 8,033,458; 8,061,598; 8,118,221; 8,336,772; and 8,794,516, all entitled “Data Storage and Access Systems.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, an injunction, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

The outcomes of our legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to our operating results and cash flows for a particular period. In addition, for some matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, an estimate of the amount of loss or range of loss is not possible and we may be unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of non-monetary remedies.