Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, the Company is involved in legal proceedings or subject to claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. The Company is not presently involved in any such legal proceeding or subject to any such claim that, in the opinion of its management would have a material adverse effect on its business, operating results or financial condition. However, the results of such legal proceedings or claims cannot be predicted with certainty, and regardless of the outcome, can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. Neither the ultimate outcome of the matters listed below nor an estimate of any probable losses or any reasonably possible losses can be assessed at this time. On May 4, 2015, Christopher Machado, a purported holder of the Company’s common stock, filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and its chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, Machado v. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO. In a second amended complaint, filed on March 18, 2016, the plaintiff alleged claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between February 25, 2014 and February 29, 2016. Those claims challenged as false or misleading certain of the Company’s disclosures about its total number of subscribers, average revenue per subscriber, the number of customers paying over $500 per year for the Company’s products and services, the average number of products sold per subscriber, and customer churn. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the purported class, compensatory damages and his costs and expenses of litigation. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 16, 2016, which remains pending. In August 2016, the parties in the Machado action and another potential claimant, who asserts that he purchased common stock in the Company’s initial public offering, agreed to toll, as of July 1, 2016, the statutes of limitation and repose for all claims under the Securities Act of 1933 that the plaintiff and claimant might bring, individually or in a representative capacity, arising from alleged actions or omissions between September 9, 2013 and February 29, 2016. The Company and the individual defendants intend to deny any liability or wrongdoing and to vigorously defend all claims asserted. The Company cannot, however, make any assurances as to the outcome of the current proceeding or any additional claims if they are brought. The Company received a subpoena dated December 10, 2015 from the Boston Regional Office of the SEC, requiring the production of certain documents, including, among other things, documents related to its financial reporting, including operating and non-GAAP metrics, refund, sales and marketing practices and transactions with related parties. The Company is fully cooperating with the SEC’s investigation. The Company can make no assurances as to the time or resources that will need to be devoted to this investigation or its final outcome, or the impact, if any, of this investigation or any related legal or regulatory proceedings on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Constant Contact On February 9, 2016, the Company acquired all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Constant Contact. On December 10, 2015, Constant Contact received a subpoena from the Boston Regional Office of the SEC, requiring the production of documents pertaining to Constant Contact’s sales, marketing, and customer retention practices, as well as periodic public disclosure of financial and operating metrics. The Company is fully cooperating with the SEC’s investigation. The Company can make no assurances as to the time or resources that will need to be devoted to this investigation or its final outcome, or the impact, if any, of this investigation or any related legal or regulatory proceedings on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant Contact and two of its former officers. An amended complaint, which named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed December 19, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding Constant Contact’s business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015. This litigation remains in its early stages. The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend all claims asserted. The Company cannot, however, make any assurances as to the outcome of this proceeding. In August 2012, RPost Holdings, Inc., RPost Communications Limited and RMail Limited, or collectively, RPost, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas that named Constant Contact as a defendant in a lawsuit. The complaint alleged that certain elements of Constant Contact’s email marketing technology infringe five patents held by RPost. RPost seeks an award for damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. In February 2013, RPost amended its complaint to name five of Constant Contact’s marketing partners as defendants. Under Constant Contact’s contractual agreements with these marketing partners, it is obligated to indemnify them for claims related to patent infringement. Constant Contact filed a motion to sever and stay the claims against its partners and multiple motions to dismiss the claims against it. In January 2014, the case was stayed pending the resolution of certain state court and bankruptcy actions involving RPost, to which Constant Contact is not a party. The case continues to be stayed pending the state court and bankruptcy actions. Meanwhile, RPost asserted the same patents asserted against Constant Contact in litigation against Go Daddy. In June 2016, Go Daddy succeeded in invalidating all of those RPost patents. RPost has appealed, and the appellate court is expected to hear oral argument on the appeal in the Spring of 2017. The litigation against Constant Contact remains stayed, and is in its early stages. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to any claim of infringement and intends to defend against the lawsuit vigorously. On December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the Constant Contact acquisition, captioned Irfan Chawdry, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11797, and on December 21, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the acquisition captioned David V. Myers, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11828 (together, the Complaints) were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, naming Constant Contact, each of Constant Contact’s directors, Endurance and Paintbrush Acquisition Corporation as defendants. The Complaints generally alleged, among other things, that in connection with the acquisition the directors of Constant Contact breached their fiduciary duties owed to the stockholders of Constant Contact by agreeing to sell Constant Contact for purportedly inadequate consideration, engaging in a flawed sales process, omitting material information necessary for stockholders to make an informed vote, and agreeing to a number of purportedly preclusive deal protection devices. The Complaints sought, among other things, to rescind the acquisition, as well as an award of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs in the action. The Complaints were consolidated on January 12, 2016. On December 5, 2016, plaintiff Myers filed a consolidated amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”), naming as defendants the former Constant Contact directors and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“Morgan Stanley”), Constant Contact’s financial advisor for the acquisition. The Amended Complaint generally alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the former directors, and aiding and abetting the alleged breach by Morgan Stanley. The Constant Contact defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on December 15, 2016 and an opening brief in support of the motion to dismiss on March 17, 2017. The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously.

Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is involved in legal proceedings or subject to claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. The Company is not presently involved in any such legal proceeding or subject to any such claim that, in the opinion of its management would have a material adverse effect on its business, operating results or financial condition. However, the results of such legal proceedings or claims cannot be predicted with certainty, and regardless of the outcome, can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. Neither the ultimate outcome of the matters listed below nor an estimate of any probable losses or any reasonably possible losses can be assessed at this time.

On May 4, 2015, Christopher Machado, a purported holder of the Company’s common stock, filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and its chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, Machado v. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO. In a second amended complaint, filed on March 18, 2016, the plaintiff alleged claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between February 25, 2014 and February 29, 2016. Those claims challenged as false or misleading certain of the Company’s disclosures about its total number of subscribers, average revenue per subscriber, the number of customers paying over $500 per year for the Company’s products and services, the average number of products sold per subscriber, and customer churn. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the purported class, compensatory damages and his costs and expenses of litigation. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 16, 2016, which remains pending. In August 2016, the parties in the Machado action and another potential claimant, who asserts that he purchased common stock in the Company’s initial public offering, agreed to toll, as of July 1, 2016, the statutes of limitation and repose for all claims under the Securities Act of 1933 that the plaintiff and claimant might bring, individually or in a representative capacity, arising from alleged actions or omissions between September 9, 2013 and February 29, 2016. The Company and the individual defendants intend to deny any liability or wrongdoing and to vigorously defend all claims asserted. The Company cannot, however, make any assurances as to the outcome of the current proceeding or any additional claims if they are brought.

The Company received a subpoena dated December 10, 2015 from the Boston Regional Office of the SEC, requiring the production of certain documents, including, among other things, documents related to its financial reporting, including operating and non-GAAP metrics, refund, sales and marketing practices and transactions with related parties. The Company is fully cooperating with the SEC’s investigation. The Company can make no assurances as to the time or resources that will need to be devoted to this investigation or its final outcome, or the impact, if any, of this investigation or any related legal or regulatory proceedings on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Constant Contact

On February 9, 2016, the Company acquired all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Constant Contact.

On December 10, 2015, Constant Contact received a subpoena from the Boston Regional Office of the SEC, requiring the production of documents pertaining to Constant Contact’s sales, marketing, and customer retention practices, as well as periodic public disclosure of financial and operating metrics. The Company is fully cooperating with the SEC’s investigation. The Company can make no assurances as to the time or resources that will need to be devoted to this investigation or its final outcome, or the impact, if any, of this investigation or any related legal or regulatory proceedings on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant Contact and two of its former officers. An amended complaint, which named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed December 19, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding Constant Contact’s business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015. This litigation remains in its early stages. The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend all claims asserted. The Company cannot, however, make any assurances as to the outcome of this proceeding.

In August 2012, RPost Holdings, Inc., RPost Communications Limited and RMail Limited, or collectively, RPost, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas that named Constant Contact as a defendant in a lawsuit. The complaint alleged that certain elements of Constant Contact’s email marketing technology infringe five patents held by RPost. RPost seeks an award for damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. In February 2013, RPost amended its complaint to name five of Constant Contact’s marketing partners as defendants. Under Constant Contact’s contractual agreements with these marketing partners, it is obligated to indemnify them for claims related to patent infringement. Constant Contact filed a motion to sever and stay the claims against its partners and multiple motions to dismiss the claims against it. In January 2014, the case was stayed pending the resolution of certain state court and bankruptcy actions involving RPost, to which Constant Contact is not a party. The case continues to be stayed pending the state court and bankruptcy actions. Meanwhile, RPost asserted the same patents asserted against Constant Contact in litigation against Go Daddy. In June 2016, Go Daddy succeeded in invalidating all of those RPost patents. RPost has appealed, and the appellate court is expected to hear oral argument on the appeal in the Spring of 2017. The litigation against Constant Contact remains stayed, and is in its early stages. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to any claim of infringement and intends to defend against the lawsuit vigorously.

On December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the Constant Contact acquisition, captioned Irfan Chawdry, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11797, and on December 21, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the acquisition captioned David V. Myers, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11828 (together, the Complaints) were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, naming Constant Contact, each of Constant Contact’s directors, Endurance and Paintbrush Acquisition Corporation as defendants. The Complaints generally alleged, among other things, that in connection with the acquisition the directors of Constant Contact breached their fiduciary duties owed to the stockholders of Constant Contact by agreeing to sell Constant Contact for purportedly inadequate consideration, engaging in a flawed sales process, omitting material information necessary for stockholders to make an informed vote, and agreeing to a number of purportedly preclusive deal protection devices. The Complaints sought, among other things, to rescind the acquisition, as well as an award of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs in the action. The Complaints were consolidated on January 12, 2016. On December 5, 2016, plaintiff Myers filed a consolidated amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”), naming as defendants the former Constant Contact directors and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“Morgan Stanley”), Constant Contact’s financial advisor for the acquisition. The Amended Complaint generally alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the former directors, and aiding and abetting the alleged breach by Morgan Stanley. The Constant Contact defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on December 15, 2016 and an opening brief in support of the motion to dismiss on March 17, 2017. The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously.