CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES Overview We are involved in legal proceedings on an ongoing basis. If we believe that a loss arising from such matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we accrue the estimated liability in our financial statements. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue the low end of the range. For those proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, we have disclosed an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses or we have concluded that an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses arising directly from the proceeding (i.e., monetary damages or amounts paid in judgment or settlement) is not material. In assessing the materiality of a legal proceeding, we evaluate, among other factors, the amount of monetary damages claimed, as well as the potential impact of non-monetary remedies sought by plaintiffs (e.g., injunctive relief) that may require us to change our business practices in a manner that could have a material adverse impact on our business. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 10, unless otherwise indicated, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of such non-monetary remedies. Specific Matters Intellectual Property Litigation Zillow LendingTree v. Zillow, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-439. On September 8, 2010, the company filed an action for patent infringement in the US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against Zillow, Inc., Nextag, Inc., Quinstreet, Inc., Quinstreet Media, Inc. and Adchemy, Inc. The complaint was amended to include Leadpoint, Inc. d/b/a Securerights on September 24, 2010. The complaint alleges that each of the defendants infringe one or both of the company's patents—U.S. Patent No. 6,385,594, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet," and U.S. Patent No. 6,611,816, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet." Collectively, the asserted patents cover computer hardware and software used in facilitating business between computer users and multiple lenders on the internet. The defendants in this action asserted various counterclaims against the company, including the assertion by certain of the defendants of counterclaims alleging illegal monopolization via our maintenance of the asserted patents. In July 2011, the company reached a settlement agreement with Leadpoint, Inc. On July 20, 2011, all claims against Leadpoint, Inc. and all counter-claims against the company by Leadpoint, Inc. were dismissed. In November 2012, the company reached a settlement agreement with Quinstreet, Inc. and Quinstreet Media, Inc. (collectively, the Quinstreet Parties); all claims against the Quinstreet Parties and all counterclaims against the company by the Quinstreet Parties were dismissed. Trial is currently expected in early 2014. The company intends to vigorously defend against all such counterclaims. Internet Patents Corp. Internet Patents Corporation f/k/a InsWeb v. Tree.com, Inc., No. C-12-6505 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal.). In December 2012, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the company seeking a judgment that we had infringed a patent held by the plaintiff. Process was formally served with respect to this matter in April 2013. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, damages, costs, expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff alleged that we infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,707,505, entitled "Dynamic Tabs for a Graphical User Interface". On October 25, 2013, the court dismissed the suit based on the finding that the plaintiff's claims failed as a matter of law because the asserted patent is invalid for lack of patent-eligible subject matter. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 7, 2013. Money Suite The Money Suite Company v. Lending Tree, LLC, No. 1:13-ev-986 (U.S. Dist. Ct, D Del.). In June 2013, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the company seeking a judgment that we infringed a patent held by plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that we infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,685,189 for "an apparatus and method using front end network gateways and search criteria for efficient quoting at a remote location". The plaintiff seeks damages (including pre- and post- judgment interest thereon), costs and attorneys' fees. We believe the plaintiff's allegations lack merit and intend to defend against this action vigorously. Other Litigation Boschma Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV7-613 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.). On May 25, 2007, the plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Home Loan Center, Inc. (HLC) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege that HLC sold them an option "ARM" (adjustable-rate mortgage) loan but failed to disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner, among other things, that the interest rate was not fixed, that negative amortization could occur and that the loan had a prepayment penalty. Based upon these factual allegations, the plaintiffs asserted violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act, violations of the Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all individuals who between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2007 obtained through HLC an option ARM loan on their primary residence located in California, and seek rescission, damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification, but have filed a total of eight complaints in connection with this lawsuit. Each of the first seven complaints has been dismissed by the federal and state courts. The plaintiffs filed the eighth complaint (a Second Amended Complaint) in Orange County (California) Superior Court on March 4, 2010 alleging only the fraud and Unfair Competition Law claims. As with each of the seven previous versions of plaintiffs' complaint, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed in April 2010. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and on August 10, 2011, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and directed the trial court to overrule the demurrer. The case was remanded to superior court. During the second quarter of 2013, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement with respect to this matter. A preliminary settlement approval hearing is scheduled for November 2013. A provision is included in current liabilities of discontinued operations as of September 30, 2013. The impact of the settlement was not material. Mortgage Store, Inc. Mortgage Store, Inc. v. LendingTree Loans d/b/a Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 6CC250 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.). On November 30, 2006, The Mortgage Store, Inc. and Castleview Home Loans, Inc. filed this putative class action against HLC in the California Superior Court for Orange County. The plaintiffs, two former network lenders, alleged that HLC interfered with LendingTree's contracts with network lenders by taking referrals from LendingTree without adequately disclosing the relationship between them and that HLC charged the plaintiffs higher rates and fees than they otherwise would have been charged. Based upon these factual allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and California Business and Professions Code §17500. The plaintiffs purport to represent all network lenders from December 14, 2004 to date, and seek damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and punitive damages. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted April 29, 2010. On October 17, 2011, the court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered in favor of HLC on April 9, 2012. On June 15, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. The plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on December 17, 2012. We filed our opposition to the plaintiffs' appellate brief in April 2013. Oral arguments were heard on this matter on September 25, 2013. We believe the plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and we intend to defend against this action vigorously. Dijkstra Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV). On November 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed this putative class action in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (CCPA), violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment, contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class includes consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. A trial is expected in March 2014. We believe that the plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and we intend to defend against this action vigorously. Massachusetts Division of Banks On February 11, 2011, the Massachusetts Division of Banks (the "Division") delivered a Report of Examination/Inspection to LendingTree, LLC, which identified various alleged violations of Massachusetts and federal laws, including the alleged insufficient delivery by LendingTree, LLC of various disclosures to its customers. On October 14, 2011, the Division provided a proposed Consent Agreement and Order to settle the Division's allegations, which the Division had shared with other state mortgage lending regulators. Thirty-four of such state mortgage lending regulators (the "Joining Regulators") indicated that if LendingTree, LLC would enter into the Consent Agreement and Order, they would agree not to pursue any analogous allegations that they otherwise might assert. As of the date of this report, none of the Joining Regulators have asserted any such allegations. The proposed Consent Agreement and Order calls for a fine to be allocated among the Division and the Joining Regulators and for LendingTree, LLC to adopt various new procedures and practices. We have commenced negotiations toward an acceptable Consent Agreement and Order. We do not believe our mortgage exchange business violated any federal or state mortgage lending laws; nor do we believe that any past operations of the mortgage business have resulted in a material violation of any such laws. Should the Division or any Joining Regulator bring any actions relating to the matters alleged in the February 2011 Report of Examination/Inspection, we intend to defend against such actions vigorously. The range of possible loss is estimated to be between $0.5 million and $6.5 million, and a reserve of $0.5 million has been established for this matter as of September 30, 2013.

CONTINGENCIES

Overview

We are involved in legal proceedings on an ongoing basis. If we believe that a loss arising from such matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we accrue the estimated liability in our financial statements. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue the low end of the range. For those proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, we have disclosed an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses or we have concluded that an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses arising directly from the proceeding (i.e., monetary damages or amounts paid in judgment or settlement) is not material.

In assessing the materiality of a legal proceeding, we evaluate, among other factors, the amount of monetary damages claimed, as well as the potential impact of non-monetary remedies sought by plaintiffs (e.g., injunctive relief) that may require us to change our business practices in a manner that could have a material adverse impact on our business. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 10, unless otherwise indicated, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of such non-monetary remedies.

Specific Matters

Intellectual Property Litigation

Zillow

LendingTree v. Zillow, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-439. On September 8, 2010, the company filed an action for patent infringement in the US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against Zillow, Inc., Nextag, Inc., Quinstreet, Inc., Quinstreet Media, Inc. and Adchemy, Inc. The complaint was amended to include Leadpoint, Inc. d/b/a Securerights on September 24, 2010. The complaint alleges that each of the defendants infringe one or both of the company's patents—U.S. Patent No. 6,385,594, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet," and U.S. Patent No. 6,611,816, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet." Collectively, the asserted patents cover computer hardware and software used in facilitating business between computer users and multiple lenders on the internet. The defendants in this action asserted various counterclaims against the company, including the assertion by certain of the defendants of counterclaims alleging illegal monopolization via our maintenance of the asserted patents. In July 2011, the company reached a settlement agreement with Leadpoint, Inc. On July 20, 2011, all claims against Leadpoint, Inc. and all counter-claims against the company by Leadpoint, Inc. were dismissed. In November 2012, the company reached a settlement agreement with Quinstreet, Inc. and Quinstreet Media, Inc. (collectively, the Quinstreet Parties); all claims against the Quinstreet Parties and all counterclaims against the company by the Quinstreet Parties were dismissed. Trial is currently expected in early 2014. The company intends to vigorously defend against all such counterclaims.

Internet Patents Corp.

Internet Patents Corporation f/k/a InsWeb v. Tree.com, Inc., No. C-12-6505 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal.). In December 2012, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the company seeking a judgment that we had infringed a patent held by the plaintiff. Process was formally served with respect to this matter in April 2013. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, damages, costs, expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff alleged that we infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,707,505, entitled "Dynamic Tabs for a Graphical User Interface". On October 25, 2013, the court dismissed the suit based on the finding that the plaintiff's claims failed as a matter of law because the asserted patent is invalid for lack of patent-eligible subject matter. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 7, 2013.

Money Suite

The Money Suite Company v. Lending Tree, LLC, No. 1:13-ev-986 (U.S. Dist. Ct, D Del.). In June 2013, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the company seeking a judgment that we infringed a patent held by plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that we infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,685,189 for "an apparatus and method using front end network gateways and search criteria for efficient quoting at a remote location". The plaintiff seeks damages (including pre- and post- judgment interest thereon), costs and attorneys' fees. We believe the plaintiff's allegations lack merit and intend to defend against this action vigorously.

Other Litigation

Boschma

Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV7-613 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.). On May 25, 2007, the plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Home Loan Center, Inc. (HLC) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege that HLC sold them an option "ARM" (adjustable-rate mortgage) loan but failed to disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner, among other things, that the interest rate was not fixed, that negative amortization could occur and that the loan had a prepayment penalty. Based upon these factual allegations, the plaintiffs asserted violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act, violations of the Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all individuals who between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2007 obtained through HLC an option ARM loan on their primary residence located in California, and seek rescission, damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification, but have filed a total of eight complaints in connection with this lawsuit. Each of the first seven complaints has been dismissed by the federal and state courts. The plaintiffs filed the eighth complaint (a Second Amended Complaint) in Orange County (California) Superior Court on March 4, 2010 alleging only the fraud and Unfair Competition Law claims. As with each of the seven previous versions of plaintiffs' complaint, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed in April 2010. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and on August 10, 2011, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and directed the trial court to overrule the demurrer. The case was remanded to superior court. During the second quarter of 2013, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement with respect to this matter. A preliminary settlement approval hearing is scheduled for November 2013. A provision is included in current liabilities of discontinued operations as of September 30, 2013. The impact of the settlement was not material.

Mortgage Store, Inc.

Mortgage Store, Inc. v. LendingTree Loans d/b/a Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 6CC250 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.). On November 30, 2006, The Mortgage Store, Inc. and Castleview Home Loans, Inc. filed this putative class action against HLC in the California Superior Court for Orange County. The plaintiffs, two former network lenders, alleged that HLC interfered with LendingTree's contracts with network lenders by taking referrals from LendingTree without adequately disclosing the relationship between them and that HLC charged the plaintiffs higher rates and fees than they otherwise would have been charged. Based upon these factual allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and California Business and Professions Code §17500. The plaintiffs purport to represent all network lenders from December 14, 2004 to date, and seek damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and punitive damages.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted April 29, 2010. On October 17, 2011, the court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered in favor of HLC on April 9, 2012. On June 15, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. The plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on December 17, 2012. We filed our opposition to the plaintiffs' appellate brief in April 2013. Oral arguments were heard on this matter on September 25, 2013. We believe the plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and we intend to defend against this action vigorously.

Dijkstra

Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV). On November 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed this putative class action in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (CCPA), violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment, contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class includes consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. A trial is expected in March 2014. We believe that the plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and we intend to defend against this action vigorously.

Massachusetts Division of Banks

On February 11, 2011, the Massachusetts Division of Banks (the "Division") delivered a Report of Examination/Inspection to LendingTree, LLC, which identified various alleged violations of Massachusetts and federal laws, including the alleged insufficient delivery by LendingTree, LLC of various disclosures to its customers. On October 14, 2011, the Division provided a proposed Consent Agreement and Order to settle the Division's allegations, which the Division had shared with other state mortgage lending regulators. Thirty-four of such state mortgage lending regulators (the "Joining Regulators") indicated that if LendingTree, LLC would enter into the Consent Agreement and Order, they would agree not to pursue any analogous allegations that they otherwise might assert. As of the date of this report, none of the Joining Regulators have asserted any such allegations.

The proposed Consent Agreement and Order calls for a fine to be allocated among the Division and the Joining Regulators and for LendingTree, LLC to adopt various new procedures and practices. We have commenced negotiations toward an acceptable Consent Agreement and Order. We do not believe our mortgage exchange business violated any federal or state mortgage lending laws; nor do we believe that any past operations of the mortgage business have resulted in a material violation of any such laws. Should the Division or any Joining Regulator bring any actions relating to the matters alleged in the February 2011 Report of Examination/Inspection, we intend to defend against such actions vigorously. The range of possible loss is estimated to be between $0.5 million and $6.5 million, and a reserve of $0.5 million has been established for this matter as of September 30, 2013.