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 September 30, 2020, future minimum contractual royalty payments due to licensors and marketing commitments for the licensed products are as follows (in thousands):

Year ending December 31:
Remaining 2020	$	5,375
2021		10,875
2022		375
2023		10,375
Thereafter		—
Total	$	27,000

We have entered into several contracts primarily for hosting of data systems and other services. As of September 30, 2020, future minimum purchase commitments that have initial or remaining non-cancelable terms are as follows (in thousands):

Year ending December 31:
Remaining 2020	$	6,650
2021		18,682
2022		5,650
2023		415
Thereafter		—
Total	$	31,397

Excluded from tables above is our uncertain income tax position liability of $25.6 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.

On September 12, 2019, the Company announced that an incident had occurred that may have involved player data (the “Data Incident”). Upon our discovery of the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist. The investigation revealed that, during the third quarter of 2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account information and other Zynga information, and that no financial information was accessed. The Company has provided notifications to players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where we believe notice was required or appropriate. The Company has exchanged correspondence with certain regulators as a result of the incident. The Company has also received and is responding to data subject access requests from certain European Union players of Zynga’s games.

Since March 3, 2020, five consumer class action complaints have been filed in connection with the Data Incident in federal court. On March 3, 2020, two plaintiffs – minor “I.C.” (acting through his parent Nasim Chaudhri) and Amy Gitre – filed a class action complaint arising out of the Data Incident (the “Chaudhri complaint”), generally alleging that Zynga failed to reasonably safeguard certain player information, including names, addresses, email addresses, passwords and more; failed to provide them with timely notification of the breach; and made unlawful representations over the safety and security of plaintiffs’ personal information. Plaintiffs allege claims against Zynga under several state law theories, including negligence, and unjust enrichment. The Chaudhri plaintiffs seek monetary relief and damages. Zynga filed a motion to compel arbitration on May 8, 2020. The hearing on the motion, originally set for August 25, 2020, was vacated by the court and the matter deemed submitted. The parties are awaiting the court’s ruling on the motion.

On March 23, 2020, plaintiffs Carol Johnson and Lisa Thomas (the “Johnson complaint”) filed a second class action complaint in the Northern District of California federal court. Similar to the Chaudhri complaint, the Johnson plaintiffs – residents of Missouri and Wisconsin – assert Zynga failed to adequately protect their personally identifiable player information (“PII”), including names, email addresses, passwords, password reset tokens, and phone numbers (among other items). Plaintiffs contend that, despite Zynga’s representations in its privacy policy that sensitive player information would be adequately protected, plaintiffs’ PII was improperly stored in plain text formatting, and inadequate encryption methods were used to store sensitive password information. Plaintiffs allege that the lack of adequate security measures caused them harm as a result of the Data Incident, and they assert numerous state law claims against Zynga, including claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The Johnson plaintiffs additionally assert claims for breach of confidence, breach of contract and implied contract, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”, CGL 17200, et seq.), and state-specific violations of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act and Wisconsin’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. On May 26, 2020, Zynga filed a motion to compel arbitration. The hearing on the motion, originally set for August 25, 2020, was vacated by the court and the matter deemed submitted. The parties are awaiting the court’s ruling on the motion.

On April 15, 2020, plaintiffs Joseph Martinez IV and Daniel Petro, residents of Colorado and Iowa, filed a third class action complaint in the Northern District of California (the “Martinez complaint”). Plaintiffs allege they are longtime Zynga players who were affected by the Data Incident. Similar to the Chaudhri and Johnson plaintiffs, the Martinez plaintiffs generally allege that Zynga failed to adequately store and protect or otherwise secure their PII, including names, email addresses, passwords, and more; that Zynga failed to protect their PII by using outdated and unlawful password encryption methods; that Zynga failed to adequately provide notice of the Data Incident; and that they have been harmed as a result of the Data Incident. Like Johnson and Chaudhri, the Martinez plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment, as well as contractual claims, and claims for relief under multiple state consumer protection statutes. Additionally, the Martinez plaintiffs also assert misrepresentation and omission claims under California’s false advertising law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of a nationwide class. Zynga responded to the Martinez complaint by filing a motion to compel arbitration on June 19, 2020. The hearing on the motion, originally set for August 25, 2020, was vacated by the court and the matter deemed submitted. The parties are awaiting the court’s ruling on the motion.

On June 9, 2020 plaintiffs James Oeste and Marissa Oeste, both residents of Maryland, filed a fourth class action complaint in the Northern District of Maryland (the “Oeste complaint”). Plaintiffs allege they were Zynga players who were affected by the Data Incident. Similar to all the foregoing plaintiffs, the Oeste plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class and generally allege that Zynga failed to adequately or reasonably protect their PII, including names, email addresses, passwords, and more; that Zynga failed to protect their PII by using outdated and unlawful password encryption methods; that Zynga failed to adequately provide notice of the Data Incident; and that they have been harmed as a result of the Data Incident. The Oeste plaintiffs assert claims for contractual breach, negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, and claims for relief under California consumer protection and unfair competition statutes. Zynga responded to the complaint on August 31, 2020, with a motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of California. The briefing on the motion was completed on September 24, 2020, and the parties are awaiting the court’s ruling on the motion.

On August 13, 2020, plaintiff Christopher Rosiak filed a fifth class action in the Northern District of California (the “Rosiak complaint”). Plaintiff alleges similar and analogous claims to those in the Martinez (and other) actions, alleging that he suffered harm as a result of Zynga’s data breach. As in those actions, Plaintiff Rosiak also alleges multiple state law claims, including contract-based claims, negligence, and violation of California’s unfair competition, false advertising, and consumer protection statutes. Zynga is reviewing the complaint, and a response to the complaint is due 30 days after the court issues its ruling on the motions to compel arbitration that are pending in the related actions.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against all claims asserted. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss, if any, arising from any of the above-referenced matters.

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.