The amounts represented in the tables below reflect our minimum cash obligations for the respective calendar years based on contractual terms, but not necessarily the periods in which these costs will be expensed in the Company’s consolidated statement of operations.

We have entered into several contracts with licensors that contain minimum contractual and marketing commitments that may not be dependent on any deliverables. As of March 31, 2019, future minimum contractual royalty payments due to licensors and marketing commitments for the licensed products are as follows (in thousands):

Year ending December 31:
2019	$	11,679
2020		42,328
Thereafter		—
Total	$	54,007

We have entered into several contracts primarily for hosting of data systems and other services. As of March 31, 2019, future minimum purchase commitments that have initial or remaining non-cancelable terms are as follows (in thousands):

Year ending December 31:
2019	$	20,382
2020		20,165
2021		9,513
Thereafter		—
Total	$	50,060

Excluded from tables above is our uncertain income tax position liability of $10.8 million, which includes interest and penalties, as the Company cannot make a reasonably reliable estimate of the period of cash settlement.

The Company is involved in legal and regulatory proceedings on an ongoing basis. Some of these proceedings are in early stages and may seek an indeterminate amount of damages. If the Company believes that a loss arising from such matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, the Company accrues the estimated liability in its financial statements. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, the Company accrues an amount within the range that, in its judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company accrues the low end of the range. For proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable and an estimate of the loss or range of losses arising from the proceeding can be made, the Company discloses such an estimate, if material. If such a loss or range of losses is not reasonably estimable, the Company discloses that fact. In assessing the materiality of a proceeding, the Company evaluates, among other factors, the amount of monetary damages claimed, as well as the potential impact of non-monetary remedies sought by plaintiffs that may require changes to business practices in a manner that could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business. Legal expenses are recognized as incurred.

Since August 3, 2012, eight stockholder derivative lawsuits have been filed in State or Federal courts in California and Delaware purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain current and former directors and executive officers of the Company. The derivative plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and violated California Corporations Code section 25402 in connection with the Company’s initial public offering in December 2011 and the Company’s secondary offering in April 2012 by allegedly making false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial projections.

Beginning on August 3, 2012, three of the actions were filed in San Francisco County Superior Court. On October 2, 2012, the court consolidated those three actions as In re Zynga Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case CGC-12-522934. On March 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in that consolidated California state action. On March 21, 2013, the court endorsed a stipulation among the parties staying the action pending the ruling on the motion to dismiss in a related federal securities class action. On March 24, 2014, the court endorsed a stipulation among the parties staying the action pending a ruling on a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the federal securities class action.

On April 24, 2015, the court endorsed a stipulation among the parties staying the action until the Delaware Chancery Court ruled on the defendants’ motion to stay or dismiss in the action described below. On May 2, 2016, the court endorsed a stipulation among the parties staying the action until final resolution of plaintiff’s appeal in the Delaware derivative action that is discussed in further detail below. At a status conference on March 8, 2017, the court stayed the action, in light of the Company’s formation of a special litigation committee discussed below. At a status conference on September 29, 2017, the court extended the stay in the action until April 9, 2018. On April 20, 2018, the Special Litigation Committee (discussed below), acting on the Company’s behalf, filed a motion to dismiss the action on grounds that the appropriate forum for resolution of the action is the Delaware Court of Chancery. On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel requested, and the court granted, a voluntary dismissal of the action in its entirety. This action has now been dismissed.

Beginning on August 16, 2012, four stockholder derivative actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 3, 2012, the court consolidated these four actions as In re Zynga Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-CV-4327-JSW. On March 11, 2013, the court endorsed a stipulation among the parties staying the action pending the ruling on the motion to dismiss in a related federal securities class action. On March 21, 2014, the court issued an order continuing the stay pending a ruling on a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the federal securities class action. On April 27, 2015, the court endorsed a stipulation among the parties staying the action until the Delaware Chancery Court ruled on the defendants’ motion to stay or dismiss in the action described below. On April 27, 2016, the court endorsed a stipulation among the parties staying the action until final resolution of plaintiff’s appeal in the Delaware derivative action discussed below. On January 26, 2017, the court endorsed a stipulation among the parties providing for a further stay of this action until July 14, 2017. On August 17, 2017, the court endorsed a stipulation among the parties providing for a further stay of this action until September 29, 2017. On October 27, 2017, the court endorsed a stipulation among the parties provided for further stay of this action until April 9, 2018. On March 29, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay in the action, and on April 17, 2018, the Special Litigation Committee, acting on behalf of the Company, filed a cross-motion to dismiss the action on grounds that the appropriate forum for resolution of the action is the Delaware Court of Chancery. On May 17, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay, and simultaneously granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action. This consolidated action has now been dismissed.

On April 4, 2014, a derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Sandys v. Pincus, et al. Case No. 9512-CB. The derivative actions include claims for, among other things, unspecified damages in favor of the Company, certain corporate actions to purportedly improve the Company’s corporate governance, and an award of costs and expenses to the derivative plaintiffs, including attorneys’ fees.

On December 9, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to stay or dismiss the action. The court held a hearing on defendants’ motion on November 17, 2015, and on February 29, 2016, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order dismissing the action. On December 5, 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. On June 7, 2017, the court endorsed a stipulation among the parties staying the action through July 31, 2017, in light of the Company’s formation of a Special Litigation Committee, as noted below. On July 18, 2017, the court endorsed a stipulation among the parties continuing the stay in the action through September 7, 2017. On September 11, 2017, the court endorsed a stipulation among the parties continuing the stay in the action through October 31, 2017. Subsequently, on January 5, 2018, the Special Litigation Committee, acting on behalf of the Company, filed a supplemental motion to stay the action until February 20, 2018, to allow the parties to engage in settlement negotiation.

On February 3, 2017, the Company’s Board of Directors established a special litigation committee (the “Special Litigation Committee”) consisting of Janice Roberts and Carol Mills, to investigate the claims asserted against certain former and current officers and directors of the Company in the shareholder derivative suits described above (collectively, the “Derivative Litigation”). The Company’s Board of Directors determined that each member of the Special Litigation Committee is disinterested and independent with respect to the Derivative Litigation. The Special Litigation Committee was created to determine what actions are appropriate and in the best interests of the Company, and decide whether it is in the best interests of the Company to pursue, dismiss or consensually resolve the claims asserted in the Derivative Litigation. The Special Litigation Committee’s findings and determinations shall be final and not subject to review by the Company’s Board of Directors and in all respects shall be binding upon the Company.

On March 1, 2018, the Special Litigation Committee (on behalf of the Company) and the Sandys defendants filed a stipulation of settlement notifying the court that these parties had reached an agreement to settle the action, releasing all claims against the defendants in consideration of an insurer-funded settlement payment that will be made to the Company. In connection with filing of the stipulation of settlement, the Special Litigation Committee also filed a report related to its investigation of the matters alleged in the action, and its conclusions with respect thereto and with respect to the proposed settlement.

In response to the filing of the stipulation of settlement, the plaintiff requested discovery relating to the settlement, and following negotiations over scope of the discovery, the Special Litigation Committee responded with written and oral discovery. Following the close of settlement-related discovery in late October 2018, plaintiff informed the parties that he will endorse the stipulated and proposed settlement as a reasonable exercise of the Special Litigation Committee’s business judgment. Accordingly, the settling parties filed a revised stipulated proposed scheduling order that the court signed and entered on October 30, 2018.

The terms of that scheduling order require Zynga to provide shareholder notice of the settlement within 10 business days of the scheduling order’s entry and establish a briefing schedule and a date of January 17, 2019 for a hearing regarding final court approval of the settlement and plaintiff’s application for a related fee and expense award.

Following satisfaction of all aspects of the scheduling order, and the lack of any objection by any shareholder, the court held the final approval hearing on January 18, 2019. At the hearing, the court determined the proposed settlement to be fair, adequate, and reasonable, and entered an order approving the $12.0 million settlement and dismissing the underlying action with prejudice. The court also approved a fee award to plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $2.3 million. The Company has received the $12.0 million settlement proceeds, and has distributed the fee award to plaintiff’s counsel from those proceeds, resulting in a net settlement amount of $9.7 million retained by the Company. The benefit from the net settlement was included in general and administrative expenses in our consolidated statement of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2019.

The court’s judgment terminating the action is now final, and the Company considers this matter fully resolved.

The Company is, at various times, also party to various other legal proceedings and claims not previously discussed which arise in the ordinary course of business. In addition, the Company may receive notifications alleging infringement of patent or other intellectual property rights. Adverse results in any such litigation, legal proceedings or claims may include awards of substantial monetary damages, expensive legal fees, costly royalty or licensing agreements, or orders preventing us from offering certain games, features, or services, and may also result in changes in the Company’s business practices, which could result in additional costs or a loss of revenue and could otherwise harm the Company’s business. Although the results of such litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that the amount or range of reasonably possible losses related to such pending or threatened litigation will not have a material adverse effect on its business, operating results, cash flows, or financial condition should such litigation be resolved unfavorably.