Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments

The following table summarizes the Company’s payment obligations as of December 31, 2019 for its contractual obligations.



	Total		2020		2021		2022		2023		2024		Thereafter
Programming Minimum Commitments ^(a)	$	276	$	216	$	37	$	12	$	11	$	—	$	—
Other ^(b)	12,658		2,536		2,598		436		366		526		6,196
	$	12,934	$	2,752	$	2,635	$	448	$	377	$	526	$	6,196

^(a)

The Company pays programming fees under multi-year contracts ranging from three to ten years, typically based on a flat fee per customer, which may be fixed for the term, or may in some cases escalate over the term. Programming costs included in the statement of operations were 11.3 billion, 11.1 billion and 10.6 billion for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 respectively. Certain of the Company’s programming agreements are based on a flat fee per month or have guaranteed minimum payments. The table sets forth the aggregate guaranteed minimum commitments under the Company’s programming contracts.

^(b)

“Other” represents other guaranteed minimum commitments, including rights negotiated directly with content owners for distribution on company-owned channels or networks, commitments related to our role as an advertising and distribution sales agent for third party-owned channels or networks, commitments to our customer premise equipment and device vendors and contractual obligations related to third-party network augmentation.

The following items are not included in the contractual obligation table due to various factors discussed below. However, the Company incurs these costs as part of its operations:


•	The Company rents utility poles used in its operations. Generally, pole rentals are cancelable on short notice, but the Company anticipates that such rentals will recur. Rent expense incurred for pole rental attachments for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 was $180 million, $171 million and $167 million, respectively.

•

The Company pays franchise fees under multi-year franchise agreements based on a percentage of revenues generated from video service per year. The Company also pays other franchise related costs, such as public education grants, under multi-year agreements. Franchise fees and other franchise-related costs included in the accompanying statement of operations were $750 million, $747 million and $705 million for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 respectively.


•	The Company has $363 million in letters of credit, of which $36 million is secured under the Charter Operating credit facility, primarily to its various casualty carriers as collateral for reimbursement of workers' compensation, auto liability and general liability claims.

•

Minimum pension funding requirements have not been presented in the table above as such amounts have not been determined beyond 2019. The Company made no cash contributions to the qualified pension plans in 2019; however, the Company is permitted to make discretionary cash contributions to the qualified pension plans in 2020. For the nonqualified pension plan, the Company contributed $4 million during 2019 and will continue to make contributions in 2020 to the extent benefits are paid.

Legal Proceedings

In August 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter, Matthew Sciabacucchi, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of a putative class of Charter stockholders, challenging the transactions involving Charter, TWC, A/N, and Liberty Broadband announced by Charter on May 26, 2015. The lawsuit, which named as defendants Charter and its board of directors, alleged that the transactions resulted from breaches of fiduciary duty by Charter’s directors and that Liberty Broadband improperly benefited from the challenged transactions at the expense of other Charter stockholders. The lawsuit has proceeded to the discovery phase. Charter denies any liability, believes that it has substantial defenses, and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. Although Charter is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit, it does not expect the outcome will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition or cash flows.

The California Attorney General and the Alameda County, California District Attorney are investigating whether certain of Charter’s waste disposal policies, procedures and practices are in violation of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Health and Safety Code. That investigation was commenced in January 2014. A similar investigation involving TWC was initiated in February 2012. Charter is cooperating with these investigations. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these investigations, it does not expect that the outcome will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

On December 19, 2011, Sprint Communications Company L.P. (“Sprint”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas alleging that TWC infringed certain U.S. patents purportedly relating to Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) services. At the trial, the jury returned a verdict of $140 million against TWC and further concluded that TWC had willfully infringed Sprint’s patents. The court subsequently declined to enhance the damage award as a result of the purported willful infringement and awarded Sprint an additional $6 million, representing pre-judgment interest on the damages award. The Company appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit where the Company lost the appeal. The Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which was denied on November 4, 2019. The Company has now paid the verdict, interest and costs in full. The Company continues to pursue indemnity from one of its vendors and has brought a patent suit against Sprint (TC Tech, LLC v. Sprint) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware implicating Sprint's LTE technology. The ultimate outcomes of the pursuit of indemnity against the Company’s vendor and the TC Tech litigation cannot be predicted. The Company does not expect the outcome of its indemnity claim nor the outcome of the TC Tech litigation will have a material adverse effect on its operations or financial condition.

Sprint filed a second suit against Charter and Bright House Networks, LLC on December 2, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. This suit alleges infringement of 15 patents related to the Company's provision of Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) services (ten of which were asserted against Legacy TWC in the matter described above). Charter is vigorously defending this case. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this Sprint suit, it does not expect that this litigation will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

Sprint filed a third suit against Charter on May 17, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This suit alleges infringement of three patents related to the Company's video on demand services. The Company is vigorously defending this case. The court transferred this case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on December 20, 2018 pursuant to an agreement between the parties. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation, it does not expect that this litigation will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

In addition to the Sprint litigation described above, the Company is a defendant or co-defendant in several additional lawsuits involving alleged infringement of various intellectual property relating to various aspects of its businesses. Other industry participants are also defendants in certain of these cases. In the event that a court ultimately determines that the Company infringes on any intellectual property, the Company may be subject to substantial damages and/or an injunction that could require the Company or its vendors to modify certain products and services the Company offers to its subscribers, as well as negotiate royalty or license agreements with respect to the intellectual property at issue. While the Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously, no assurance can be given that any adverse outcome would not be material to the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. The Company cannot predict the outcome of any such claims nor can it reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

The Company is party to other lawsuits, claims and regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of conducting its business. The ultimate outcome of these other legal matters pending against the Company cannot be predicted, and although such lawsuits and claims are not expected individually to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity, such lawsuits could have, in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Whether or not the Company ultimately prevails in any particular lawsuit or claim, litigation can be time consuming and costly and injure the Company’s reputation.