COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Office Facility Leases—The Company leases its office facilities under operating lease agreements that expire from 2017 to 2029. Certain lease agreements provide for rental payments on a graduated basis. The Company recognizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the lease period. Rental expense was $11.4 million and $9.3 million for the three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $31.0 million and $26.9 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The Company has subleased certain office facilities under operating lease agreements that expire in 2021. The Company recognizes sublease rentals as a reduction in rental expense on a straight-line basis over the lease period. Sublease rental income was $0.5 million and $0.5 million for the three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $1.5 million and $1.5 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Legal Proceedings—The Company is subject to legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company currently does not believe that the final outcome of any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In August 2014, two putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits allege violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and certain of its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and operations between October 29, 2013 and April 3, 2014. These cases were subsequently consolidated and, in January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Following the court’s dismissal of the consolidated complaint on April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on May 21, 2015. On November 24, 2015, the court dismissed the first amended complaint with prejudice, and entered judgment in the Company’s favor on December 28, 2015. The plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which heard the appeal on September 11, 2017. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued a decision. On April 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by former Eat24 employees in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County, naming as defendants the Company and Eat24. The lawsuit asserts that the defendants failed to permit meal and rest periods for certain current and former employees working as Eat24 customer support specialists, and alleges violations of the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. On May 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. In January 2016, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to settle this matter, which the court preliminarily approved on June 27, 2016. The settlement received final court approval on December 5, 2016 and the $0.6 million settlement amount was paid on February 8, 2017. On June 24, 2015, a former Eat24 sales employee filed a lawsuit, on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former Eat24 sales employees, against Eat24 in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. The lawsuit alleges that Eat24 failed to pay required wages, including overtime wages, allow meal and rest periods and maintain proper records, and asserts causes of action under the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. On August 3, 2015, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. In January 2016, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to settle this matter, which the court preliminarily approved on August 29, 2016. The settlement received final court approval on February 1, 2017 and the $0.2 million settlement amount was paid on March 29, 2017. Indemnification Agreements—In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements, services to be provided by the Company or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. Under the Purchase Agreement, the Company agreed to indemnify the Purchaser and certain related parties against certain losses arising out of Purchaser's acquisition of Eat24, including, but not limited to, any breach or inaccuracy of any representation or warranty made by the Company or Eat24 in the Purchase Agreement. The Company's indemnification obligations are subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Agreement, and are capped at the purchase price received by the Company in the Disposition. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with directors and certain officers and employees that will require the Company to, among other things, indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors, officers or employees. While the outcome of claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does not believe that the outcome of any claims under the indemnification arrangements will have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Payroll Tax Audit—In June 2015, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) began a payroll tax audit of the Company for 2013 and 2014. The Company has assessed the estimated range of such loss and, as of September 30, 2017, a liability of $0.5 million has been recorded. The Company expects the audits and any related assessments to be finalized in 2018.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Office Facility Leases—The Company leases its office facilities under operating lease agreements that expire from 2017 to 2029. Certain lease agreements provide for rental payments on a graduated basis. The Company recognizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the lease period. Rental expense was $11.4 million and $9.3 million for the three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $31.0 million and $26.9 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

The Company has subleased certain office facilities under operating lease agreements that expire in 2021. The Company recognizes sublease rentals as a reduction in rental expense on a straight-line basis over the lease period. Sublease rental income was $0.5 million and $0.5 million for the three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $1.5 million and $1.5 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Legal Proceedings—The Company is subject to legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company currently does not believe that the final outcome of any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In August 2014, two putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits allege violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and certain of its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and operations between October 29, 2013 and April 3, 2014. These cases were subsequently consolidated and, in January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Following the court’s dismissal of the consolidated complaint on April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on May 21, 2015. On November 24, 2015, the court dismissed the first amended complaint with prejudice, and entered judgment in the Company’s favor on December 28, 2015. The plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which heard the appeal on September 11, 2017. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued a decision.

On April 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by former Eat24 employees in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County, naming as defendants the Company and Eat24. The lawsuit asserts that the defendants failed to permit meal and rest periods for certain current and former employees working as Eat24 customer support specialists, and alleges violations of the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. On May 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. In January 2016, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to settle this matter, which the court preliminarily approved on June 27, 2016. The settlement received final court approval on December 5, 2016 and the $0.6 million settlement amount was paid on February 8, 2017.

On June 24, 2015, a former Eat24 sales employee filed a lawsuit, on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former Eat24 sales employees, against Eat24 in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. The lawsuit alleges that Eat24 failed to pay required wages, including overtime wages, allow meal and rest periods and maintain proper records, and asserts causes of action under the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. On August 3, 2015, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. In January 2016, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to settle this matter, which the court preliminarily approved on August 29, 2016. The settlement received final court approval on February 1, 2017 and the $0.2 million settlement amount was paid on March 29, 2017.

Indemnification Agreements—In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements, services to be provided by the Company or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties.

Under the Purchase Agreement, the Company agreed to indemnify the Purchaser and certain related parties against certain losses arising out of Purchaser's acquisition of Eat24, including, but not limited to, any breach or inaccuracy of any representation or warranty made by the Company or Eat24 in the Purchase Agreement. The Company's indemnification obligations are subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Agreement, and are capped at the purchase price received by the Company in the Disposition.

In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with directors and certain officers and employees that will require the Company to, among other things, indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors, officers or employees.

While the outcome of claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does not believe that the outcome of any claims under the indemnification arrangements will have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Payroll Tax Audit—In June 2015, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) began a payroll tax audit of the Company for 2013 and 2014. The Company has assessed the estimated range of such loss and, as of September 30, 2017, a liability of $0.5 million has been recorded. The Company expects the audits and any related assessments to be finalized in 2018.