Commitments and Contingencies and Other Items	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies and Other Items	Commitments and Contingencies and Other Items We are subject to various claims, legal proceedings and other contingent liabilities, including the matters described below, which individually or in the aggregate could materially affect our financial condition, future results of operations or cash flows. As a matter of course, we are prepared to both litigate these matters to judgment as needed, as well as to evaluate and consider reasonable settlement opportunities. Irrespective of its merits, litigation may be both lengthy and disruptive to our operations and could cause significant expenditure and diversion of management attention. We review our litigation accrual liabilities on a quarterly basis, but in accordance with applicable accounting guidelines only establish accrual liabilities when losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable and only revise previously-established accrual liabilities when warranted by changes in circumstances, in each case based on then-available information. As such, as of any given date we could have exposure to losses under proceedings as to which no liability has been accrued or as to which the accrued liability is inadequate. Amounts accrued for our litigation and non-income tax contingencies at March 31, 2020 aggregated to approximately $143 million and are included in other current liabilities and other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheet as of such date. The establishment of an accrual does not mean that actual funds have been set aside to satisfy a given contingency. Thus, the resolution of a particular contingency for the amount accrued could have no effect on our results of operations but nonetheless could have an adverse effect on our cash flows. In this Note, when we refer to a class action as "putative" it is because a class has been alleged, but not certified in that matter. Principal Proceedings Shareholder Class Action Suit CenturyLink and certain CenturyLink board members and officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink shareholders as a result of our acquisition of Level 3. It alleges that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3 shareholders failed to disclose various material information of several kinds, including information about strategic revenue, customer loss rates, and customer account issues, among other items. The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory damages, and other equitable relief. Switched Access Disputes Subsidiaries of CenturyLink, Inc. are among hundreds of companies involved in an industry-wide dispute, raised in nearly 100 federal lawsuits (filed between 2014 and 2016) that have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for pretrial procedures. The disputes relate to switched access charges that local exchange carriers ("LECs") collect from interexchange carriers ("IXCs") for IXCs' use of LEC's access services. In the lawsuits, IXCs, including Sprint Communications Company L.P. ("Sprint") and various affiliates of Verizon Communications Inc. ("Verizon"), assert that federal and state laws bar LECs from collecting access charges when IXCs exchange certain types of calls between mobile and wireline devices that are routed through an IXC. Some of these IXCs have asserted claims seeking refunds of payments for access charges previously paid and relief from future access charges. In November 2015, the federal court agreed with the LECs and rejected the IXCs' contention that federal law prohibits these particular access charges. Final judgments have been entered in the consolidated lawsuits and the IXCs are pursuing an appeal. Separately, some of the defendants, including CenturyLink's LECs, have petitioned the FCC to address these issues on an industry-wide basis. Our subsidiaries include both IXCs and LECs which respectively pay and assess significant amounts of the charges in question. The outcome of these disputes and lawsuits, as well as any related regulatory proceedings that could ensue, are currently not predictable. State Tax Suits Since 2012, a number of Missouri municipalities have asserted claims in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, alleging that we and several of our subsidiaries have underpaid taxes. These municipalities are seeking, among other things, declaratory relief regarding the application of business license and gross receipts taxes and back taxes from 2007 to the present, plus penalties and interest. In a February 2017 ruling in connection with one of these pending cases, the court entered an order awarding plaintiffs $4 million and broadening the tax base on a going-forward basis. We appealed that decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. In December 2019, it affirmed the circuit court's order in some respects and reversed it in others, remanding the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. The Missouri Supreme Court's decision will reduce our exposure in the case. In a June 2017 ruling in connection with another one of these pending cases, the circuit court made findings in a non-final ruling which, if not overturned or modified in light of the Missouri Supreme Court's decision, will result in a tax liability to us well in excess of the contingent liability we have established. We plan to appeal any circuit court final ruling that substantially incorporates the June 2017 findings. We continue to vigorously defend against these claims. Billing Practices Suits In June 2017, a former employee filed an employment lawsuit against us claiming that she was wrongfully terminated for alleging that we charged some of our retail customers for products and services they did not authorize. Starting shortly thereafter and continuing since then and based in part on the allegations made by the former employee, several legal proceedings have been filed. In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class action, was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that we charged some of our retail customers for products and services they did not authorize. Other complaints asserting similar claims were filed in other federal and state courts. The lawsuits assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Also in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that we failed to disclose material information regarding improper sales practices, and asserting federal securities law claims. A number of other cases asserting similar claims have also been filed. Beginning June 2017, we also received several shareholder derivative demands addressing related topics. In August 2017, the Board of Directors formed a special litigation committee of outside directors to address the allegations of impropriety contained in the shareholder derivative demands. In April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its review of the derivative demands and declined to take further action. Since then, derivative cases were filed in Louisiana state court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita and in federal court in Louisiana and Minnesota. These cases have been brought on behalf of CenturyLink against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company and seek damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The consumer putative class actions, the securities investor putative class actions, and the federal derivative actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation. Subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, we have agreed to settle the consumer putative class actions for payments of $15.5 million to compensate class members and of up to $3.5 million for administrative costs. In the second quarter of 2019, we accrued for these obligations, and a portion of the administrative costs has been expended in 2020. Certain class members may elect to opt out of the class settlement and pursue the resolution of their individual claims against us on these issues through various dispute resolution processes, including individual arbitration. One law firm claims to represent more than 22,000 potential class members. To the extent that a substantial number of class members, including many of the law firm’s alleged clients, meet the contractual requirements to arbitrate, elect to opt out of the settlement (or otherwise successfully exclude their individual claims), and actually pursue arbitrations, the Company could incur a material amount of filing and other arbitrations fees in relation to the administration of those claims. In July 2017, the Minnesota state attorney general filed State of Minnesota v. CenturyTel Broadband Services LLC, et al. in the Anoka County Minnesota District Court, alleging claims of fraud and deceptive trade practices relating to improper consumer sales practices. We have engaged in discussions regarding potential resolutions of these claims with a number of state attorneys general, and have entered into agreements settling the Minnesota suit and certain of the consumer practices claims asserted by state attorneys general. While we do not agree with allegations raised in these matters, we have been willing to consider reasonable settlements where appropriate. In the fourth quarter of 2019, we recorded an accrual with respect to the above-described settlements and other consumer litigation related matters. Peruvian Tax Litigation In 2005, the Peruvian tax authorities ("SUNAT") issued tax assessments against one of our Peruvian subsidiaries asserting $26 million, of additional income tax withholding and value-added taxes ("VAT"), penalties and interest for calendar years 2001 and 2002 on the basis that the Peruvian subsidiary incorrectly documented its importations. After taking into account the developments described below, as well as the accrued interest and foreign exchange effects, we believe the total amount of our exposure was $6 million at March 31, 2020. We challenged the assessments via administrative and then judicial review processes. In October 2011, the highest administrative review tribunal (the Tribunal) decided the central issue underlying the 2002 assessments in SUNAT's favor. We appealed the Tribunal's decision to the first judicial level, which decided the central issue in favor of Level 3. SUNAT and we filed cross-appeals with the court of appeal. In May 2017, the court of appeal issued a decision reversing the first judicial level. In June 2017, we filed an appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court of Justice, the final judicial level. Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court of Justice in October 2018. A decision on this case is pending. In October 2013, the Tribunal decided the central issue underlying the 2001 assessments in SUNAT’s favor. We appealed that decision to the first judicial level in Peru, which decided the central issue in favor of SUNAT. In June 2017, we filed an appeal with the court of appeal. In November 2017, the court of appeals issued a decision affirming the first judicial level and we filed an appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court of Justice. Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court of Justice in June 2019. A decision on this case is pending. Brazilian Tax Claims In December 2004, March 2009, April 2009 and July 2014, the São Paulo state tax authorities issued tax assessments against one of our Brazilian subsidiaries for the Tax on Distribution of Goods and Services (“ICMS”) with respect to revenue from leasing certain assets (in the case of the December 2004, March 2009 and July 2014 assessments) and revenue from the provision of Internet access services (in the case of the April 2009 and July 2014 assessments), by treating such activities as the provision of communications services, to which the ICMS tax applies. In September 2002, July 2009 and May 2012, the Rio de Janeiro state tax authorities issued tax assessments to the same Brazilian subsidiary on similar issues. We have filed objections to these assessments, arguing that the lease of assets and the provision of Internet access are not communication services subject to ICMS. The objections to the September 2002, December 2004 and March 2009 assessments were rejected by the respective state administrative courts, and we have appealed those decisions to the judicial courts. In October 2012 and June 2014, we received favorable rulings from the lower court on the December 2004 and March 2009 assessments regarding equipment leasing, but those rulings are subject to appeal by the state. No ruling has been obtained with respect to the September 2002 assessment. The objections to the April and July 2009 and May 2012 assessments are still pending final administrative decisions. The July 2014 assessment was confirmed during the fourth quarter of 2014 at the first administrative level, and we appealed this decision to the second administrative level. We are vigorously contesting all such assessments in both states and, in particular, view the assessment of ICMS on revenue from equipment leasing to be without merit. These assessments, if upheld, could result in a loss of $37 million up to $42 million at March 31, 2020 in excess of the accruals established for these matters. Qui Tam Action Level 3 was notified in late 2017 of a qui tam action pending against Level 3 Communications, Inc. and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned United States of America ex rel., Stephen Bishop v. Level 3 Communications, Inc. et al. The original qui tam complaint and an amended complaint were filed under seal on November 26, 2013 and June 16, 2014, respectively. The court unsealed the complaints on October 26, 2017. The amended complaint alleges that Level 3, principally through two former employees, submitted false claims and made false statements to the government in connection with two government contracts. The relator seeks damages in this lawsuit of approximately $50 million, subject to trebling, plus statutory penalties, pre-and-post judgment interest, and attorney’s fees. The case is currently stayed. Level 3 is evaluating its defenses to the claims. At this time, Level 3 does not believe it is probable Level 3 will incur a material loss. If, contrary to its expectations, the plaintiff prevails in this matter and proves damages at or near $50 million, and is successful in having those damages trebled, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability is recognized and on our cash flows for the period in which any damages are paid. Several people, including two former Level 3 employees, were indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on October 3, 2017, and charged with, among other things, accepting kickbacks from a subcontractor, who was also indicted, for work to be performed under a prime government contract. Of the two former employees, one entered into a plea agreement, and the other is deceased. Level 3 is fully cooperating in the government’s investigations in this matter. Other Proceedings, Disputes and Contingencies From time to time, we are involved in other proceedings incidental to our business, including patent infringement allegations, administrative hearings of state public utility commissions relating primarily to our rates or services, actions relating to employee claims, various tax issues, environmental law issues, grievance hearings before labor regulatory agencies and miscellaneous third party tort actions. We are currently defending several patent infringement lawsuits asserted against us by non-practicing entities, many of which are seeking substantial recoveries. These cases have progressed to various stages and one or more may go to trial during 2020 if they are not otherwise resolved. Where applicable, we are seeking full or partial indemnification from our vendors and suppliers. As with all litigation, we are vigorously defending these actions and, as a matter of course, are prepared to litigate these matters to judgment, as well as to evaluate and consider all reasonable settlement opportunities. We are subject to various foreign, federal, state and local environmental protection and health and safety laws. From time to time, we are subject to judicial and administrative proceedings brought by various governmental authorities under these laws. Several such proceedings are currently pending, but none is reasonably expected to exceed $100,000 in fines and penalties. The outcome of these other proceedings described under this heading is not predictable. However, based on current circumstances, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these other proceedings, after considering available defenses and any insurance coverage or indemnification rights, will have a material adverse effect on us. The matters listed above in this Note do not reflect all of our contingencies. For additional information on our contingencies, see Note 19 - Commitments, Contingencies and Other Items - to the financial statements included in Item 8 of part II of our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019. The ultimate outcome of the above-described matters may differ materially from the outcomes anticipated, estimated, projected or implied by us in certain of our statements appearing above in this Note, and proceedings currently viewed as immaterial by us may ultimately materially impact us. Environmental Contingencies In connection with our largely historical operations, we have responded to or been notified of potential environmental liability at approximately 200 properties. We are engaged in addressing or have liquidated environmental liabilities at many of those properties. We could potentially be held liable, jointly, or severally, and without regard to fault, for the costs of investigation and remediation of these sites. The discovery of additional environmental liabilities or changes in existing environmental requirements could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are subject to various claims, legal proceedings and other contingent liabilities, including the matters described below, which individually or in the aggregate could materially affect our financial condition, future results of operations or cash flows. As a matter of course, we are prepared to both litigate these matters to judgment as needed, as well as to evaluate and consider reasonable settlement opportunities.

Irrespective of its merits, litigation may be both lengthy and disruptive to our operations and could cause significant expenditure and diversion of management attention. We review our litigation accrual liabilities on a quarterly basis, but in accordance with applicable accounting guidelines only establish accrual liabilities when losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable and only revise previously-established accrual liabilities when warranted by changes in circumstances, in each case based on then-available information. As such, as of any given date we could have exposure to losses under proceedings as to which no liability has been accrued or as to which the accrued liability is inadequate. Amounts accrued for our litigation and non-income tax contingencies at March 31, 2020 aggregated to approximately $143 million and are included in other current liabilities and other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheet as of such date. The establishment of an accrual does not mean that actual funds have been set aside to satisfy a given contingency. Thus, the resolution of a particular contingency for the amount accrued could have no effect on our results of operations but nonetheless could have an adverse effect on our cash flows.

CenturyLink and certain CenturyLink board members and officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink shareholders as a result of our acquisition of Level 3. It alleges that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3 shareholders failed to disclose various material information of several kinds, including information about strategic revenue, customer loss rates, and customer account issues, among other items. The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory damages, and other equitable relief.

Subsidiaries of CenturyLink, Inc. are among hundreds of companies involved in an industry-wide dispute, raised in nearly 100 federal lawsuits (filed between 2014 and 2016) that have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for pretrial procedures. The disputes relate to switched access charges that local exchange carriers ("LECs") collect from interexchange carriers ("IXCs") for IXCs' use of LEC's access services. In the lawsuits, IXCs, including Sprint Communications Company L.P. ("Sprint") and various affiliates of Verizon Communications Inc. ("Verizon"), assert that federal and state laws bar LECs from collecting access charges when IXCs exchange certain types of calls between mobile and wireline devices that are routed through an IXC. Some of these IXCs have asserted claims seeking refunds of payments for access charges previously paid and relief from future access charges.

In November 2015, the federal court agreed with the LECs and rejected the IXCs' contention that federal law prohibits these particular access charges. Final judgments have been entered in the consolidated lawsuits and the IXCs are pursuing an appeal. Separately, some of the defendants, including CenturyLink's LECs, have petitioned the FCC to address these issues on an industry-wide basis.

Since 2012, a number of Missouri municipalities have asserted claims in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, alleging that we and several of our subsidiaries have underpaid taxes. These municipalities are seeking, among other things, declaratory relief regarding the application of business license and gross receipts taxes and back taxes from 2007 to the present, plus penalties and interest. In a February 2017 ruling in connection with one of these pending cases, the court entered an order awarding plaintiffs $4 million and broadening the tax base on a going-forward basis. We appealed that decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. In December 2019, it affirmed the circuit court's order in some respects and reversed it in others, remanding the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. The Missouri Supreme Court's decision will reduce our exposure in the case. In a June 2017 ruling in connection with another one of these pending cases, the circuit court made findings in a non-final ruling which, if not overturned or modified in light of the Missouri Supreme Court's decision, will result in a tax liability to us well in excess of the contingent liability we have established. We plan to appeal any circuit court final ruling that substantially incorporates the June 2017 findings. We continue to vigorously defend against these claims.

In June 2017, a former employee filed an employment lawsuit against us claiming that she was wrongfully terminated for alleging that we charged some of our retail customers for products and services they did not authorize. Starting shortly thereafter and continuing since then and based in part on the allegations made by the former employee, several legal proceedings have been filed.

In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class action, was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that we charged some of our retail customers for products and services they did not authorize. Other complaints asserting similar claims were filed in other federal and state courts. The lawsuits assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Also in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that we failed to disclose material information regarding improper sales practices, and asserting federal securities law claims. A number of other cases asserting similar claims have also been filed.

Beginning June 2017, we also received several shareholder derivative demands addressing related topics. In August 2017, the Board of Directors formed a special litigation committee of outside directors to address the allegations of impropriety contained in the shareholder derivative demands. In April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its review of the derivative demands and declined to take further action. Since then, derivative cases were filed in Louisiana state court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita and in federal court in Louisiana and Minnesota. These cases have been brought on behalf of CenturyLink against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company and seek damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The consumer putative class actions, the securities investor putative class actions, and the federal derivative actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation. Subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, we have agreed to settle the consumer putative class actions for payments of $15.5 million to compensate class members and of up to $3.5 million for administrative costs. In the second quarter of 2019, we accrued for these obligations, and a portion of the administrative costs has been expended in 2020. Certain class members may elect to opt out of the class settlement and pursue the resolution of their individual claims against us on these issues through various dispute resolution processes, including individual arbitration. One law firm claims to represent more than 22,000 potential class members. To the extent that a substantial number of class members, including many of the law firm’s alleged clients, meet the contractual requirements to arbitrate, elect to opt out of the settlement (or otherwise successfully exclude their individual claims), and actually pursue arbitrations, the Company could incur a material amount of filing and other arbitrations fees in relation to the administration of those claims.

We have engaged in discussions regarding potential resolutions of these claims with a number of state attorneys general, and have entered into agreements settling the Minnesota suit and certain of the consumer practices claims asserted by state attorneys general. While we do not agree with allegations raised in these matters, we have been willing to consider reasonable settlements where appropriate.

In 2005, the Peruvian tax authorities ("SUNAT") issued tax assessments against one of our Peruvian subsidiaries asserting $26 million, of additional income tax withholding and value-added taxes ("VAT"), penalties and interest for calendar years 2001 and 2002 on the basis that the Peruvian subsidiary incorrectly documented its importations. After taking into account the developments described below, as well as the accrued interest and foreign exchange effects, we believe the total amount of our exposure was $6 million at March 31, 2020.

We challenged the assessments via administrative and then judicial review processes. In October 2011, the highest administrative review tribunal (the Tribunal) decided the central issue underlying the 2002 assessments in SUNAT's favor. We appealed the Tribunal's decision to the first judicial level, which decided the central issue in favor of Level 3. SUNAT and we filed cross-appeals with the court of appeal. In May 2017, the court of appeal issued a decision reversing the first judicial level. In June 2017, we filed an appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court of Justice, the final judicial level. Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court of Justice in October 2018. A decision on this case is pending.

In October 2013, the Tribunal decided the central issue underlying the 2001 assessments in SUNAT’s favor. We appealed that decision to the first judicial level in Peru, which decided the central issue in favor of SUNAT. In June 2017, we filed an appeal with the court of appeal. In November 2017, the court of appeals issued a decision affirming the first judicial level and we filed an appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court of Justice. Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court of Justice in June 2019. A decision on this case is pending.

In December 2004, March 2009, April 2009 and July 2014, the São Paulo state tax authorities issued tax assessments against one of our Brazilian subsidiaries for the Tax on Distribution of Goods and Services (“ICMS”) with respect to revenue from leasing certain assets (in the case of the December 2004, March 2009 and July 2014 assessments) and revenue from the provision of Internet access services (in the case of the April 2009 and July 2014 assessments), by treating such activities as the provision of communications services, to which the ICMS tax applies. In September 2002, July 2009 and May 2012, the Rio de Janeiro state tax authorities issued tax assessments to the same Brazilian subsidiary on similar issues.

We have filed objections to these assessments, arguing that the lease of assets and the provision of Internet access are not communication services subject to ICMS. The objections to the September 2002, December 2004 and March 2009 assessments were rejected by the respective state administrative courts, and we have appealed those decisions to the judicial courts. In October 2012 and June 2014, we received favorable rulings from the lower court on the December 2004 and March 2009 assessments regarding equipment leasing, but those rulings are subject to appeal by the state. No ruling has been obtained with respect to the September 2002 assessment. The objections to the April and July 2009 and May 2012 assessments are still pending final administrative decisions. The July 2014 assessment was confirmed during the fourth quarter of 2014 at the first administrative level, and we appealed this decision to the second administrative level.

We are vigorously contesting all such assessments in both states and, in particular, view the assessment of ICMS on revenue from equipment leasing to be without merit. These assessments, if upheld, could result in a loss of $37 million up to $42 million at March 31, 2020 in excess of the accruals established for these matters.

Level 3 was notified in late 2017 of a qui tam action pending against Level 3 Communications, Inc. and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned United States of America ex rel., Stephen Bishop v. Level 3 Communications, Inc. et al. The original qui tam complaint and an amended complaint

The amended complaint alleges that Level 3, principally through two former employees, submitted false claims and made false statements to the government in connection with two government contracts. The relator seeks damages in this lawsuit of approximately $50 million, subject to trebling, plus statutory penalties, pre-and-post judgment interest, and attorney’s fees. The case is currently stayed.

Level 3 is evaluating its defenses to the claims. At this time, Level 3 does not believe it is probable Level 3 will incur a material loss. If, contrary to its expectations, the plaintiff prevails in this matter and proves damages at or near $50 million, and is successful in having those damages trebled, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability is recognized and on our cash flows for the period in which any damages are paid.

Several people, including two former Level 3 employees, were indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on October 3, 2017, and charged with, among other things, accepting kickbacks from a subcontractor, who was also indicted, for work to be performed under a prime government contract. Of the two former employees, one entered into a plea agreement, and the other is deceased. Level 3 is fully cooperating in the government’s investigations in this matter.

From time to time, we are involved in other proceedings incidental to our business, including patent infringement allegations, administrative hearings of state public utility commissions relating primarily to our rates or services, actions relating to employee claims, various tax issues, environmental law issues, grievance hearings before labor regulatory agencies and miscellaneous third party tort actions.

We are currently defending several patent infringement lawsuits asserted against us by non-practicing entities, many of which are seeking substantial recoveries. These cases have progressed to various stages and one or more may go to trial during 2020 if they are not otherwise resolved. Where applicable, we are seeking full or partial indemnification from our vendors and suppliers. As with all litigation, we are vigorously defending these actions and, as a matter of course, are prepared to litigate these matters to judgment, as well as to evaluate and consider all reasonable settlement opportunities.

We are subject to various foreign, federal, state and local environmental protection and health and safety laws. From time to time, we are subject to judicial and administrative proceedings brought by various governmental authorities under these laws. Several such proceedings are currently pending, but none is reasonably expected to exceed $100,000 in fines and penalties.

The outcome of these other proceedings described under this heading is not predictable. However, based on current circumstances, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these other proceedings, after considering available defenses and any insurance coverage or indemnification rights, will have a material adverse effect on us.

The matters listed above in this Note do not reflect all of our contingencies. For additional information on our contingencies, see Note 19 - Commitments, Contingencies and Other Items - to the financial statements included in Item 8 of part II of our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019. The ultimate outcome of the above-described matters may differ materially from the outcomes anticipated, estimated, projected or implied by us in certain of our statements appearing above in this Note, and proceedings currently viewed as immaterial by us may ultimately materially impact us.

In connection with our largely historical operations, we have responded to or been notified of potential environmental liability at approximately 200 properties. We are engaged in addressing or have liquidated environmental liabilities at many of those properties. We could potentially be held liable, jointly, or severally, and without regard to fault, for the costs of investigation and remediation of these sites. The discovery of additional environmental liabilities or changes in existing environmental requirements could have a material adverse effect on our business.