COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Summary of future minimum lease payments for all operating leases

Minimum future payments under all operating leases as of September 30, 2012, are as follows (in thousands):

Payments due by period
2012 (remainder)	$	2,033
2013	8,206
2014	8,404
2015	6,814
2016	1,381
Thereafter	183
	$	27,021

Rental expense for operating leases totaled $2.1 million and $2.0 million for the three months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively and $6.5 million and $6.1 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Estimated sublease income of $875,000 is expected over the next three years of which $379,000 is anticipated to be received in the next 12 months.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are involved in litigation concerning consumer protection, employment, intellectual property and other commercial matters related to the conduct and operation of our business and the sale of products on our Website. In connection with such litigation, we may be subject to significant damages. In some instances other parties may have contractual indemnification obligations to us. However, such contractual obligations may prove unenforceable or non-collectible, and in the event we cannot enforce or collect on indemnification obligations, we may bear the full responsibility for damages, fees and costs resulting from such litigation. We may also be subject to equitable remedies and penalties. Such litigation could be costly and time consuming and could divert or distract our management and key personnel from our business operations. Due to the uncertainty of litigation and depending on the amount and the timing, an unfavorable resolution of some or all of these matters could materially affect our business, results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

On February 2, 2007, along with five shareholder plaintiffs, we filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco against Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Goldman Sachs & Co., Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Bank of America Securities LLC, Bank of New York, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse (USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and UBS Financial Services, Inc., and later amended the complaint to add Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. as a defendant. The suit alleged that the defendants, who controlled over 80% of the prime brokerage market, participated in an illegal stock market manipulation scheme and that the defendants had no intention of covering short sell orders with borrowed stock, as they are required to do, causing what are referred to as “fails to deliver” and that the defendants’ actions caused and continued to cause dramatic declines in the share price of our stock and that the amount of “fails to deliver” often exceeded our entire supply of outstanding shares. The suit accused the defendants of violations of California securities laws and common law and violations of California’s Unfair Business Practices Act. After it filed for bankruptcy on September 2008, we elected not to pursue our claims against Lehman Brothers Holdings. On July 23, 2009, the court sustained defendants’ demurrer to our amended causes of action for conversion and trespass to chattels. On December 15, 2010, we and the other plaintiffs in the case entered into a settlement agreement with certain of the defendants requiring these defendants to pay in the aggregate $4.5 million to plaintiffs. Other terms of settlement are confidential. At that time, remaining defendants in the suit were Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing L.P., (“Goldman Defendants”) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation (“Merrill Lynch Defendants), and Bank of America Securities LLC. On December 15, 2010, we filed a motion to amend our complaint against the Goldman and Merrill Lynch Defendants to add a cause of action based on the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act. Defendants challenged the RICO claim by demurrer and eventually the court sustained the demurrer. We thereafter entered a settlement agreement with Bank of America Securities LLC, the terms of which are confidential, and have dismissed the action as to that defendant. On August 19, 2011, the remaining defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On January 10, 2012 the court granted the motion for summary judgment as to all remaining defendants and judgment has been entered. We have appealed. The defendants have applied to the court for reimbursement from us of their allowable court costs in the collective amount of $2.4 million. We believe the full amount applied for is excessive and not permissible under California law. In the trial court we have contested the requested costs amount. The court has not heard arguments on the disputed costs amount. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to any court costs ordered against us are described above.

On May 30, 2008 we filed a complaint in New York state court against the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, its Commissioner, the State of New York and its governor, alleging that a New York state tax law is unconstitutional. The effect of the New York law is to require Internet sellers to collect and remit New York sales taxes on their New York sales even if the seller has no New York tax “nexus” other than with New York based independent contractors who are Internet advertising affiliates. The complaint asks for the court to declare the law unconstitutional and enjoin its application to us. New York filed a motion to dismiss. We responded to the motion and filed a motion for summary judgment, and both motions were heard simultaneously. On January 12, 2009, the court granted New York’s motion to dismiss and denied our motion for summary judgment. We appealed the decision and on November 4, 2010 the New York Appellate Division upheld part of the lower court’s ruling rejecting our claims that the law is unconstitutional on its face, but remanded our claims that the law is unconstitutional as applied, for further discovery and proceedings in the lower court. We filed with the New York State Court of Appeals a motion of leave to appeal the portions of the decision upholding the lower court’s ruling. On March 15, 2011, the Appellate Division of the New York State Court of Appeals denied our motion for leave to appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals. We have determined not to pursue at the trial court level our claims that the law is unconstitutional as applied. We proceeded with an appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals of the Appellate Division’s ruling on our claim that the statute is unconstitutional on its face. On March 26, 2012, the court agreed to hear the case. The New York State Court of Appeals has not yet heard the case.

On August 12, 2008, we along with seven other defendants, were sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by Sean Lane, and seventeen other individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly in a class action suit, alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Computer Crime Law. The complaint relates to our use of a product known as Facebook Beacon, created and provided to us by Facebook, Inc. Facebook Beacon provided the means for Facebook users to share purchasing data among their Facebook friends. The parties extended by agreement the time for defendants’ answer, including our answer, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated settlement to the court for approval, which would resolve the case without requirement of financial contribution from us. On March 17, 2010, over objections lodged by some parties, the court entered an order accepting settlement. Various parties appealed and on September 20, 2012 the Federal Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit upheld the settlement. It is unknown whether the parties will seek further appeal. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made.

On November 14, 2008, we filed suit in Ohio state court against the Ohio Tax Commissioner, the Ohio Attorney General and the Governor of Ohio, alleging the Ohio Commercial Activity Tax is unconstitutional. Enacted in 2005, Ohio’s Commercial Activity Tax is based on activities in Ohio that contribute to production or gross income for a company whether or not the company has a physical presence in or nexus within the state. Our complaint asked for a judgment declaring the tax unconstitutional and for an injunction preventing any enforcement of the tax. The defendants moved to dismiss the case. On July 28, 2009, the trial court ruled that there was no justiciable controversy in the case, as we had not yet been assessed a tax, and it granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. In September 2009, we received a letter of determination from the Ohio Department of Taxation noting the Department’s determination that we are required to register for remitting of the Commercial Activity Tax, and owe $612,784 in taxes, interest, and penalties as of June 30, 2009. The Ohio Department of Taxation issued additional estimated assessments of estimated tax, interest and penalties totaling $121,958 as of December 31, 2011.We have filed protests to challenge the Department’s Assessments on constitutional grounds and the matter is currently pending before the Ohio Department of Taxation’s Legal Division for administrative review and determination. A hearing on these matters was held November 18, 2011. No administrative ruling has been issued following the hearing. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. We believe the determinations to be unlawful and erroneous and are vigorously contesting the determination.

On March 10, 2009, we were sued in a class action filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. Cynthia Hines, the nominative plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims for breach of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer fraud laws. The Plaintiff alleges we failed to properly disclose our returns policy to her and that we improperly imposed a “restocking” charge on her return of a vacuum cleaner. We filed a motion to dismiss based upon assertions that our agreement with our customers requires all such actions to be arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah. Alternatively, we asked that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Utah, so that arbitration may be compelled in that district. On September 8, 2009 the motion to dismiss or transfer was denied, the court stating that our browsewrap agreement was insufficient under New York law to establish an agreement with the customer to arbitrate disputes in Utah. On October 8, 2009, we filed a Notice of Appeal of the court’s ruling. The appeal was denied. On December 31, 2010 Hines filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint eliminated common law fraud claims and breach of contract claims and added claims for breach of Utah’s consumer protection statute and various other state consumer protection statutes. The amended complaint also asks for an injunction. The suit is in final discovery stages. We filed motions to dismiss and to decertify the class. The court has not ruled on these motions. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action.

On September 23, 2009, SpeedTrack, Inc. sued us along with 27 other defendants in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California. We are alleged to have infringed a patent covering search and categorization software. We believe that certain third party vendors of products and services sold to us are contractually obligated to indemnify us in this action. On November 11, 2009, the parties stipulated to stay all proceedings in the case until resolution of a the United States Patent and Trademark Office had concluded and resolved a reexamination of the patent in question, and also until a previously filed infringement action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and other retailers resulted either in judgment or dismissal. Subsequently, the parties agreed to extend the time for defendants’ complaint answer until 21 days following a court order to lift the stay to which the parties stipulated. The United States Patent and Trademark Office resolved the reexamination of the patent in question in favor of SpeedTrack, Inc. The case remains stayed, pending the outcome of the infringement action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and other retailers. On February 22, 2012, the court in the Wal-Mart Stores case granted Wal-Mart Stores’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The court also granted Speedtrack’s motion for summary judgment on patent validity. It is not known whether the summary judgments granted in the Wal-Mart Stores case will have an effect on the Speedtrack case in which we are named as one of the defendants. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action and pursue our indemnification rights with our vendors.

On or about September 25, 2009, Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. filed suit against us and 12 other defendants in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. We are alleged to have infringed three patents purportedly related to a communications protocol between a user and server terminals, text input functionalities and search processes. We believe a third party vendor of search products and services sold to us is contractually obligated to indemnify us in this action as it pertains to the search patent. On October 14, 2011, a jury returned a verdict in our favor, finding non-infringement on all asserted claims, on all patents, and finding of invalidity of the Alcatel-Lucent patent, having to do with a communications protocol. On November 29, 2011, Alcatel-Lucent filed a motion for a new trial which was denied. Alcatel-Lucent has filed an appeal which we will oppose.

On May 11, 2010, Site Update Solutions, LLC filed suit against us and 34 other defendants in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Texas (now transferred to the Northern District of California) for infringement of a patent claiming “a process for maintaining ongoing registration for pages on a given search engine . . . a method to actively cause an updating of a specific Internet search engine database regarding a particular WWW resource.” The case was later transferred to the Northern District of California where, following an adverse ruling, Site Update Solutions agreed to dismiss the case and on August 13, the court entered its order of dismissal.

On September 29, 2010, a trustee in bankruptcy filed against us an adversary proceeding in the matter of In re: Petters Company, Inc., a case filed in United States Bankruptcy Court, in the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleges principal causes of action against us under various Bankruptcy Code sections and the Minnesota Fraudulent Transfer Act, to recover damages for alleged transfers of property from the Petters Company occurring prior to the filing of the case initially as a civil receivership in October 2008. The trustee’s complaint alleges such transfers occurred in at least one note transaction whereby we transferred at least $2.3 million and received in return transfers totaling at least $2.5 million. The trustee does not specify a date for the transactions; however we believe that any alleged transaction with the Petters Company would have taken place in excess of seven years from the date of the filing of the adversary proceeding. The case is in its early stages. We filed a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations and other grounds. The court has not ruled upon the motion to dismiss. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action.

On November 17, 2010 we were sued in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, by District Attorneys for the California Counties of Alameda, Marin, Monterey, Napa, Santa Clara, Shasta and Sonoma County, and the County of Santa Cruz recently joined the suit. These district attorneys seek damages and an injunction under claims for violations of California consumer protection laws, alleging we made untrue or misleading statements concerning our pricing, price reductions, sources of products and shipping charges. The complaint asks for damages in the amount of not less than $15 million. The suit is in the discovery stage. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. We intend to vigorously defend this action.

On September 11, 2011, Droplets, Inc. filed suit against us and eight other defendants in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of a patent covering strings of programming code downloaded from a server to a client computer. We have answered the complaint. The case is in its early stages. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action and pursue our indemnification rights with our vendors.

On September 13, 2011, Select Retrieval, LLC filed suit against us and 79 other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of a patent covering the hierarchical display of interactive links on a webpage. We filed a motion to dismiss which was denied. The case is in its early stages. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action and pursue our indemnification rights with our vendors.

On November 18, 2011 Smartfit Solutions, LLC filed suit against us and 43 other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of a patent covering certain “methods for presenting exercise protocols to a user and evaluating the effectiveness of the same.” We have tendered the defense of this action to an indemnitor which has accepted the defense. We have answered the complaint. The case is in its early stages. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action and pursue our indemnification rights with our vendors.

On December 29, 2011 The Tobin Family Education and Health Foundation filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for infringement of a patent covering a method and system for customizing marketing services on networks communication with hypertext tagging conventions. We have tendered the defense of this action to an indemnitor which has accepted the defense and settled the case at no cost to us. On July 13, 2012, the court accepted the settlement and entered an order dismissing us from the case.

On January 27, 2012, Pragmatus Telecom, LLC filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of two patents covering a system for coordinating data and voice communications via customer contact channel changing system using voice over IP and infringement of one patent for coordinating data and voice communications via customer contact channel changing system. We have answered the complaint. We have tendered the defense of the case to an indemnitor, who has moved to stay the case against us pending the disposition of a declaratory action which the indemnitor brought against Pragmatus Telecom. The case against us was stayed July 10, 2012, pending resolution of the declaratory action. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action and pursue our indemnification rights with our vendors.

On March 1, 2012, H-W Technology, L.C. filed suit against us in the United States District Court in the Northern District of Texas for infringement of a patent entitled “Internet Protocol (IP) Phone with Search and Advertising Capability.” We have answered the complaint. The case is in its early stages. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action and pursue our indemnification rights, if any, with our vendors.

On May 2, 2012, Execware LLC filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of a patent entitled: “Integrated Dialog Box for Rapidly Altering Presentation of Parametric Text Data Objects on a Computer Display.” We have answered the complaint. The case is in its early stages. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action and pursue our indemnification rights with our vendors.

On May 10, 2012, Lodsys Group, LLC filed suit against us and seven other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of a patent covering method and system for gathering information from units of a commodity across a network. We have tendered the defense of this action to an indemnitor which has accepted the defense. We have not answered the complaint. The case is in its early stages. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action and pursue our indemnification rights with our vendors.

On July 16, 2012, Digitech Image Technologies, LLC filed against us and forty-five other defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for infringement of a patent covering the imaging technology that facilitates prediction of color and location within digital cameras. We have tendered defense of the case to an indemnitor which has accepted the defense. Following an adverse ruling in the case, the case was dismissed and in September 2012, Digitech filed a new complaint in the same court on the same infringement claims. In the new action, our indemnitor continues to defend the case. The case is in its early stages. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action and pursue our indemnification rights with our vendors.

On July 19, 2012, Data Carriers, LLC filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of a patent covering the “autocomplete” features of our website. We believe a third party vendor is contractually obligated to indemnify us in this action. We have answered the complaint. The case is in its early stages. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action and pursue our indemnification rights with our vendors.

On October 18, 2012 ArrivalStar and Melvino Technologies Limited, filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for infringement of three patents, described in summary as follows: (1) System and Method for Activation of an Advance Notification for Monitoring and Reporting Status of Vehicle Travel; (2) System and Method for Advance Notification System for Monitoring and Reporting Proximity of a Vehicle; and (3) Notification System and Methods with User-Defineable Notifications Based Upon Occurrence of Events. The complaint has not yet been served. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action and pursue our indemnification rights, if any, with our vendors.

We establish liabilities when a particular contingency is probable and estimable. As of September 30, 2012, we have accrued $3.0 million in light of these probable and estimable liabilities. It is reasonably possible that the actual losses may exceed our accrued liabilities. We have other contingencies which are reasonably possible; however, the reasonably possible exposure to losses cannot currently be estimated.