
	Three Months Ended March 31,
		2023		2022
Operating leases
Operating lease cost		$	1,432	$	1,434
Other lease cost		55		50
Operating lease expense		1,487		1,484
Short-term lease rent expense		66		46
Total rent expense		$	1,553	$	1,530


	Three Months Ended March 31,
		2023			2022
Operating cash flows from operating leases		$	747		$	99
Right of use assets exchanged for operating lease liabilities		$	—		$	4,312
Weighted average remaining lease term - operating leases		11.1			12.0
Weighted average remaining discount rate - operating leases		7.4		%	7.4		%


Nine Months Ended December 31, 2023	$	4,049
Year Ended December 31, 2024	5,939
Year Ended December 31, 2025	5,939
Year Ended December 31, 2026	5,939
Year Ended December 31, 2027	4,831
Thereafter	36,141
Total	62,838
Less present value discount	(21,724)
Operating lease liabilities	$	41,114

The Company is a party to several non-cancelable contracts with vendors and licensors for marketing and other strategic partnership related agreements where the Company is obligated to make future minimum payments under the non-cancelable terms of these contracts as follows (in thousands):

During the three months ended March 31, 2023, the Company made upfront payments totaling approximately $13.7 million, which are recorded in prepaid sports rights on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

The Company is subject to certain legal proceedings and claims that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business, including relating to business practices and patent infringement. Litigation can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and the Company’s view of these matters may change in the future as the litigation and events related thereto unfold. When the Company determines that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, a liability is recorded and disclosed if the amount is material to the financial statements taken as a whole. When a material loss contingency is only reasonably possible, the Company does not record a liability, but instead discloses the nature and the amount of the claim, and an estimate of the loss or range of loss, if such an estimate can reasonably be made. Legal expenses associated with any contingency are expensed as incurred.

The Company is engaged in discussions with certain third parties regarding patent licensing matters. The Company is not able to reasonably estimate whether it will be able to reach an agreement with these parties or the amount of potential licensing fees, if any, it may agree to pay in connection with these discussions, but it is possible that any such amount could be material.

From time to time, we enter into business arrangements with vendors for technology services in the ordinary course of business. We are currently engaged in discussions with a vendor surrounding the scope of the parties’ relationship and underlying obligations under the terms of their contract. This includes, among other things, the type and range of services to be provided by this vendor to the Company, the corresponding expenditures by the Company payable under the agreement, and the vendor’s compliance with its good faith express and implied obligations under the contract. Accordingly, we are not able to reasonably estimate the amount of the Company’s potential expenditures, if any, under our arrangement with this vendor, but it is possible that the amounts that the Company may pay for services under the contract could be material.

The Company is and may in the future be involved in various legal proceedings arising from the normal course of business activities. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, currently, the Company believes that the likelihood of any material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or our financial position for any such litigation or claims is remote. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of the costs to defend lawsuits, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Said-Ibrahim v. fuboTV Inc., David Gandler , Edgar M. Bronfman Jr., & Simone Nardi , Case No. 21-cv-01412 (S.D.N.Y) & Lee v. fuboTV, Inc., David Gandler, Edgar M. Bronfman Jr., & Simone Nardi, Case No. 21-cv-01641 (S.D.N.Y.) (consolidated as In re fuboTV Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 21-cv-01412 (S.D.N.Y.))

On February 17, 2021, putative shareholders Wafa Said-Ibrahim and Adhid Ibrahim filed a class action lawsuit against the Company, co-founder and CEO David Gandler, Executive Chairman Edgar M. Bronfman Jr., and CFO Simone Nardi (collectively, the “Class Action Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege that Class Action Defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial health and operating condition, including the Company’s ability to grow subscription levels, prospects, future profitability, seasonality factors, cost escalations, ability to generate advertising revenue, valuation, and entering the online sports wagering market. The Plaintiffs allege that Class Action Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seek damages and other relief.

On April 29, 2021, the court consolidated Said-Ibrahim v. fuboTV Inc., David Gandler, Edgar M. Bronfman Jr., & Simone Nardi, Case No. 21-cv-01412 (S.D.N.Y) and Lee v. fuboTV, Inc., David Gandler, Edgar M. Bronfman Jr., & Simone Nardi, Case No. 21-cv-01641 (S.D.N.Y.) under In re FuboTV Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-01412 (S.D.N.Y.). The court also appointed putative shareholder Nordine Aamchoune as lead plaintiff.

On July 12, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint. Lead Plaintiff seeks to pursue this claim on behalf of himself as well as all other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities publicly traded on the NYSE between March 23, 2020 and January 4, 2021, inclusive, and who were allegedly damaged thereby.

The Class Action Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint on September 10, 2021. Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 9, 2021. Class Action Defendants’ filed their reply in support of the motion to dismiss on December 9, 2021. On March 30, 2023, the Court granted the Class Action Defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Following the dissolution of Fubo Gaming in October 2022, the Company has received communications from several commercial partners of Fubo Gaming, alleging breach by Fubo Gaming of applicable agreements. Certain of these parties have also asserted that the Company is a guarantor of Fubo Gaming’s obligations under the applicable agreements. On May 2, 2023, one such party (comprising two related plaintiff entities, Dynamo Stadium, LLC and Dynamo Soccer, LLC (together, “Dynamo”)) filed Demands for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against Fubo Gaming, alleging breaches by Fubo Gaming of a sports betting agreement and a sponsorship agreement, as well as against the Company for alleged guaranty obligations under the sports betting agreement. Dynamo is seeking monetary damages and costs. The arbitration is currently pending and discussions with Dynamo regarding the arbitration are ongoing.

Additional allegations or litigation may arise against Fubo Gaming or the Company in the future related to the dissolution of Fubo Gaming, including potential breach of contract claims by other commercial partners of Fubo Gaming or claims related to guarantees by the Company of Fubo Gaming’s contractual obligations. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome, or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, with respect to any such matters, including the Dynamo matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously in any such matters.