5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Summary of future minimum lease payments for all operating leases

Minimum future payments under all operating leases as of March 31, 2013, are as follows (in thousands):

Payments due by period
2013 (remainder)	$	7,297
2014	9,899
2015	8,320
2016	1,630
2017	183
Thereafter	—
	$	27,329

Rental expense for operating leases totaled $2.1 million and $2.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Estimated sublease income of $87,000 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 penalties and equitable remedies that could force us to alter important business practices. 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 the judgment has been entered. We have appealed. The defendants applied to the court for reimbursement from us of their allowable court costs in the collective amount of $2.4 million. We challenged the application as excessive under California law, and, following hearing, the amount was reduced to $689,471, which will be payable only if we do not succeed on our appeal of the summary judgment. 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 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 determined not to pursue at the trial court level our claims that the law is unconstitutional as applied and 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 28, 2013, New York State Court of Appeals denied the appeal. We intend to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

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. Appealing parties have petitioned for a rehearing. On February 26, 2013, the Court denied the petition. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above.

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 $158,246 as of March 31, 2013. 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. 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 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 and appeal 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. Speedtrack is appealing the ruling. 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 have opposed. The appeal is set for hearing May 10, 2013.

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 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. Trial has been set tentatively for September 9, 2013. 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, if any, 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 tendered the defense of this action to an indemnitor which 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 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 tendered the defense of the case to an indemnitor. 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 discovery. On January 28, 2013, we filed a motion for summary judgment for invalidity on two claims of the patent. The court has yet to rule on the motion. 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 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 tendered defense of the case to an indemnitor which accepted the defense. Following a ruling in our favor, 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 and has filed a motion to stay on our behalf. 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 cooperate with our indemnitor and vigorously defend this action.

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 February 11, 2013, RPost Holdings, Inc., RPost Communications Limited, and RMail Limited, filed suit against us in the United States District Court in Eastern District of Texas for infringement of patents covering products and services that verify the delivery and integrity of email messages. We tendered defense of the case to an indemnitor which 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.

On April 23, 2013, Eclipse IP, LLC filed suit against us in the United States District Court in Eastern District of Texas for infringement of patents covering “secure notification messaging systems and methods using authentication indicia.” We are presently examining whether we are indemnified by any vendor. We have not yet been served nor answered the complaint. 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 establish liabilities when a particular contingency is probable and estimable. At March 31, 2013, 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.