Note 12 - Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	*NOTE 12.* COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES** The Company is subject to federal, state and Native American laws and regulations that affect both its general commercial relationships with its customers, as well as the products and services provided to them. Periodically, the Company reviews the status of each significant matter and assesses the potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be estimated, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. If a potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered reasonably possible, the Company discloses an estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss, or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether an exposure is reasonably estimable. Because of uncertainties related to these matters, accruals are based only on the best information available at the time. As additional information becomes available, the Company reassesses the potential liability related to their pending claims and litigation and may revise their estimates. Such revisions in the estimates of the potential liabilities could have a material impact on the results of operations and financial condition. During the three months ended September 30, 2019, the Company recorded a $1.6 million loss reserve, for which insurance coverage has been triggered. In accordance with GAAP, the offsetting insurance recovery will be recognized when it is realized or realizable in a future period. On June 25, and July 31, 2020 putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "Court"), by two separate plaintiffs against PlayAGS, Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its officers, individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between August 2, 2018 and August 7, 2019. The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s forward-looking financial outlook and accounting for goodwill and intangible assets in its iGaming reporting unit, resulting in injury to the purported class members when the value of the Company’s common stock declined following its release of its Second Quarter 2019 results on August 7, 2019. On August 4, 2020, a third plaintiff (“OPPRS”) filed a putative class action lawsuit in the same court asserting similar claims to those alleged in the first two class action complaints, based on substantially the same conduct, on behalf of a slightly larger class (stretching back to May 3, 2018). Specifically, OPPRS claimed that the Company, certain of its officers, and certain entities that allegedly beneficially held over 50% of the Company’s common stock at the beginning of the class period, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s forward-looking financial outlook and accounting for goodwill and intangible assets in its iGaming reporting unit, and the adequacy of its internal controls over financial reporting, resulting in injury to the purported class when the Company’s common stock price declined following the release of its Second Quarter 2019 results. In addition, based on substantially similar alleged false or misleading statements, OPPRS asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all persons who purchased Company common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s August 2018 and March 2019 secondary public offerings. These secondary-offering claims were brought against the same defendants identified above, plus certain of the Company’s directors and the underwriters. On October 28, 2020, the Court consolidated these three related putative class actions into In re PlayAGS, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed OPPRS as lead plaintiff. On January 11, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in the consolidated action against the same set of defendants, again asserting claims (i) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, with an even larger putative class period ( May 3, 2018 through March 4, 2020), and (ii) under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of the same putative class as in OPPRS’s previous complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that statements the defendants made about, among other things, the Company’s growth, financial performance, and forward-looking financial outlook were materially false or misleading because the Company omitted to state that, according to plaintiffs, its market strength was declining, its growth strategies were unsustainable, and it was experiencing challenges in the Oklahoma market. Plaintiffs claim that the purported class was injured when the common stock price declined after the alleged “truth” was revealed following release of the Company’s financial reports on August 7, 2019, November 7, 2019, and March 4, 2020. Plaintiffs also assert that the Company violated Regulation S-K Items 303 and 105 by failing to disclose these same alleged negative trends and significant risks in the registration materials for the Company’s secondary offerings. Unlike the previous complaints, the Amended Complaint does not allege false or misleading statements concerning the Company’s accounting for the iGaming reporting unit or the adequacy of the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting. On February 23, 2021 the Court granted the lead plaintiff’s unopposed motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on March 25, 2021 and asserts substantially the same claims as the Amended Complaint but extends the beginning of the putative class period back to January 26, 2018. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint on May 24, 2021; the lead plaintiff filed its opposition papers on July 23, 2021, and the defendants filed their replies on September 13, 2021. The motions to dismiss are now fully briefed and await the Court's decision; no oral argument has yet been scheduled. The defendants believe the claims are without merit, and intend to defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome. On March 18, 2022, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada by putative stockholder Manjan Chowdhury, allegedly on behalf of the Company, that piggy-backs on the consolidated securities class action referenced above and currently pending before the same Court. The derivative complaint names David Lopez, Kimo Akiona, and members of the Board as defendants, and generally alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties by causing or failing to prevent the same allegedly false and misleading statements asserted in the securities class action. The derivative complaint also alleges claims for contribution against Mr. Lopez and Mr. Akiona under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. On June 9, 2022, the court stayed the derivative action, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action. The Company and the individual defendants believe the claims in the shareholder derivative action are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this matter. In January 2021, we obtained the results of an audit conducted by the Alabama Department of Revenue (“ADOR”), in which the ADOR assessed $3.3 million including interest in unpaid state and local rental taxes on participation revenues and licensing fees that we received from the leasing of EGMs to a Native American tribe in the state of Alabama in the period from May 2016 through August 2019. ADOR claims that such revenues constitute a lease rental payment and are deemed taxable in nature even in situations involving Native American tribe lessees. We believe that we were not required to collect and remit Alabama state lease/rental tax on our leases of EGMs in the state as those leases are on federally designated Indian reservation land and because federal Indian trading laws and Indian gaming laws, as well as the U.S. Constitution, preempt application of the rental tax to these transactions with the Native American tribe. We have disputed ADOR’s audit findings in accordance with applicable state and local tax procedures and ADOR rules. Our dispute is currently in the discovery phase at the Alabama Tax Tribunal, which is the independent tax court for the state of Alabama. We expect a hearing for this dispute at the Alabama Tax Tribunal will be scheduled in 2023. We have not accrued the $3.3 million assessed by ADOR, as we do not believe that it is probable that a liability has occurred. However, if we do not prevail in the dispute with ADOR, we may be required to accrue this amount as well as applicable interest. It is also possible that ADOR may similarly audit the participation revenues and licensing fees that we received from the leasing of EGMs to a Native American tribe in the state of Alabama subsequent to August 2019. While we cannot reasonably calculate the amount that ADOR would assess for the revenues from such subsequent periods due to the types of revenues and rates that apply, based solely on the amount assessed for the period from May 2016 through August 2019, we estimate that ADOR’s assessment for taxable lease rental payments for subsequent periods through September 30, 2022 would not exceed $2.0 million, excluding interest. There is no assurance that ADOR will assess our revenues from subsequent periods or that such assessment will not materially differ from our estimate. .

Note 12 - Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company is subject to federal, state and Native American laws and regulations that affect both its general commercial relationships with its customers, as well as the products and services provided to them. Periodically, the Company reviews the status of each significant matter and assesses the potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be estimated, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. If a potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered reasonably possible, the Company discloses an estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss, or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether an exposure is reasonably estimable. Because of uncertainties related to these matters, accruals are based only on the best information available at the time. As additional information becomes available, the Company reassesses the potential liability related to their pending claims and litigation and may revise their estimates. Such revisions in the estimates of the potential liabilities could have a material impact on the results of operations and financial condition.

During the three months ended September 30, 2019, the Company recorded a $1.6 million loss reserve, for which insurance coverage has been triggered. In accordance with GAAP, the offsetting insurance recovery will be recognized when it is realized or realizable in a future period.

On June 25, and July 31, 2020 putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "Court"), by two separate plaintiffs against PlayAGS, Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its officers, individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between August 2, 2018 and August 7, 2019. The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s forward-looking financial outlook and accounting for goodwill and intangible assets in its iGaming reporting unit, resulting in injury to the purported class members when the value of the Company’s common stock declined following its release of its Second Quarter 2019 results on August 7, 2019.

On August 4, 2020, a third plaintiff (“OPPRS”) filed a putative class action lawsuit in the same court asserting similar claims to those alleged in the first two class action complaints, based on substantially the same conduct, on behalf of a slightly larger class (stretching back to May 3, 2018). Specifically, OPPRS claimed that the Company, certain of its officers, and certain entities that allegedly beneficially held over 50% of the Company’s common stock at the beginning of the class period, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s forward-looking financial outlook and accounting for goodwill and intangible assets in its iGaming reporting unit, and the adequacy of its internal controls over financial reporting, resulting in injury to the purported class when the Company’s common stock price declined following the release of its Second Quarter 2019 results. In addition, based on substantially similar alleged false or misleading statements, OPPRS asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all persons who purchased Company common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s August 2018 and March 2019 secondary public offerings. These secondary-offering claims were brought against the same defendants identified above, plus certain of the Company’s directors and the underwriters.

On October 28, 2020, the Court consolidated these three related putative class actions into In re PlayAGS, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed OPPRS as lead plaintiff. On January 11, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in the consolidated action against the same set of defendants, again asserting claims (i) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, with an even larger putative class period ( May 3, 2018 through March 4, 2020), and (ii) under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of the same putative class as in OPPRS’s previous complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that statements the defendants made about, among other things, the Company’s growth, financial performance, and forward-looking financial outlook were materially false or misleading because the Company omitted to state that, according to plaintiffs, its market strength was declining, its growth strategies were unsustainable, and it was experiencing challenges in the Oklahoma market. Plaintiffs claim that the purported class was injured when the common stock price declined after the alleged “truth” was revealed following release of the Company’s financial reports on August 7, 2019, November 7, 2019, and March 4, 2020. Plaintiffs also assert that the Company violated Regulation S-K Items 303 and 105 by failing to disclose these same alleged negative trends and significant risks in the registration materials for the Company’s secondary offerings. Unlike the previous complaints, the Amended Complaint does not allege false or misleading statements concerning the Company’s accounting for the iGaming reporting unit or the adequacy of the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting.

On February 23, 2021 the Court granted the lead plaintiff’s unopposed motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on March 25, 2021 and asserts substantially the same claims as the Amended Complaint but extends the beginning of the putative class period back to January 26, 2018. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint on May 24, 2021; the lead plaintiff filed its opposition papers on July 23, 2021, and the defendants filed their replies on September 13, 2021. The motions to dismiss are now fully briefed and await the Court's decision; no oral argument has yet been scheduled. The defendants believe the claims are without merit, and intend to defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome.

On March 18, 2022, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada by putative stockholder Manjan Chowdhury, allegedly on behalf of the Company, that piggy-backs on the consolidated securities class action referenced above and currently pending before the same Court. The derivative complaint names David Lopez, Kimo Akiona, and members of the Board as defendants, and generally alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties by causing or failing to prevent the same allegedly false and misleading statements asserted in the securities class action. The derivative complaint also alleges claims for contribution against Mr. Lopez and Mr. Akiona under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. On June 9, 2022, the court stayed the derivative action, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action. The Company and the individual defendants believe the claims in the shareholder derivative action are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome.

At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this matter.

In January 2021, we obtained the results of an audit conducted by the Alabama Department of Revenue (“ADOR”), in which the ADOR assessed $3.3 million including interest in unpaid state and local rental taxes on participation revenues and licensing fees that we received from the leasing of EGMs to a Native American tribe in the state of Alabama in the period from May 2016 through August 2019. ADOR claims that such revenues constitute a lease rental payment and are deemed taxable in nature even in situations involving Native American tribe lessees.

We believe that we were not required to collect and remit Alabama state lease/rental tax on our leases of EGMs in the state as those leases are on federally designated Indian reservation land and because federal Indian trading laws and Indian gaming laws, as well as the U.S. Constitution, preempt application of the rental tax to these transactions with the Native American tribe. We have disputed ADOR’s audit findings in accordance with applicable state and local tax procedures and ADOR rules. Our dispute is currently in the discovery phase at the Alabama Tax Tribunal, which is the independent tax court for the state of Alabama. We expect a hearing for this dispute at the Alabama Tax Tribunal will be scheduled in 2023.

We have not accrued the $3.3 million assessed by ADOR, as we do not believe that it is probable that a liability has occurred. However, if we do not prevail in the dispute with ADOR, we may be required to accrue this amount as well as applicable interest. It is also possible that ADOR may similarly audit the participation revenues and licensing fees that we received from the leasing of EGMs to a Native American tribe in the state of Alabama subsequent to August 2019. While we cannot reasonably calculate the amount that ADOR would assess for the revenues from such subsequent periods due to the types of revenues and rates that apply, based solely on the amount assessed for the period from May 2016 through August 2019, we estimate that ADOR’s assessment for taxable lease rental payments for subsequent periods through September 30, 2022 would not exceed $2.0 million, excluding interest. There is no assurance that ADOR will assess our revenues from subsequent periods or that such assessment will not materially differ from our estimate.