Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	7. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation and Other Legal Matters The Company is subject to certain contingent liabilities with respect to existing or potential claims, lawsuits and other proceedings. The Company accrues liabilities when it considers probable that future costs will be incurred and such costs can be reasonably estimated. The proceeding-related reserve is based on developments to date and historical information related to actions filed against the Company. As of March 31, 2015, the Company had established reserves for proceeding-related contingencies of $2,708 thousands to cover legal actions against the Company in which its Management has assessed the likelihood of a final adverse outcome as probable. In addition, as of March 31, 2015 the Company and its subsidiaries are subject to certain legal actions considered by the Company’s management and its legal counsels to be reasonably possible for an aggregate amount up to $4,451 thousands. No loss amount has been accrued for such reasonably possible legal actions of which most significant (individually or in the aggregate) are described below. As of March 31, 2015, there were 41 lawsuits pending against our Argentine subsidiary in the Argentine ordinary courts and 767 pending claims in the Argentine Consumer Protection Agencies, where a lawyer is not required to file or pursue a claim. As of March 31, 2015, there were two claims pending against our Mexican subsidiaries in the Mexican ordinary courts and 57 claims pending against our Mexican subsidiary in the Mexican Consumer Protection Agencies, where a lawyer is not required to file or pursue a claim. As of March 31, 2015, 641 legal actions were pending in the Brazilian ordinary courts. In addition, as of March 31, 2015, there were 2,672 cases still pending in Brazilian consumer courts. Filing and pursuing of an action before Brazilian consumer courts do not require the assistance of a lawyer. In most of the cases filed against the Company, the plaintiffs asserted that the Company was responsible for fraud committed against them, or responsible for damages suffered when purchasing an item on the Company’s website, or when using MercadoPago, in other companies’ websites. On August 25, 2010, Citizen Watch do Brasil S/A, or Citizen, sued Brazilian subsidiaries in the 31th Central Civil Court State of São Paulo, Brazil. Citizen alleged that the Brazilian subsidiaries were infringing Citizen’s trademarks as a result of users selling allegedly counterfeit Citizen watches through the Brazilian page of the Brazilian subsidiaries’ website. Citizen sought an order enjoining the sale of Citizen-branded watches on the Brazilian subsidiaries’ Marketplace with a $6,000 daily non-compliance penalty. On September 23, 2010, the Brazilian subsidiaries were summoned of an injunction granted to prohibit the offer of Citizen products on its platform, but the penalty was established at $6,000 per day. On September 26, 2010, the Brazilian subsidiaries presented their defense and appealed the decision of the injunction relief to the State Court of Appeals of São Paulo on September 27, 2010. On October 22, 2010 the injunction granted to Citizen was suspended. On March 23, 2011, the Company’s appeal regarding the injunction granted to Citizen was ruled in favor of the Brazilian subsidiaries. On May 4, 2011, Citizen presented a motion to clarify the decision but it was dismissed on March 14, 2012. On May 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a special recourse related to the injunction relief to the State Court of Appeals, and the Brazilian subsidiaries presented their defense on August 16, 2012 which was not admitted. In September 2012, the Plaintiff filed a legal action against the Brazilian subsidiaries with same arguments alleged in the injunction request and seeking for compensatory and statutory damages and defenses were presented on March 20, 2013. On January 9, 2013, Citizen presented a motion to request the appeal to be ruled by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça). On March 1, 2013, the Company presented its response to that appeal. On August 27, 2013, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice ruled against Citizen’s appeal. The Superior Court of Justice ruled that the Brazilian subsidiaries were not responsible for alleged infringement of intellectual property rights by its users and that they should comply with the “notice and take down” procedure it already have in place. On October 4, 2013, Citizen presented a motion to clarify mentioned decision issued by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice and such motion was denied on November 11, 2013. Citizen then filed, on November 25, 2013, an Extraordinary Appeal aiming the decision rendered by Brazilian Superior Court of Justice to be reviewed by Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. On February 21, 2014, Brazilian subsidiaries presented its response to Citizen’s Extraordinary Appeal. On March 10, 2014, Citizen’s extraordinary appeal was not accepted by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice and, on March 26, 2014, Citizen filed an appeal against such decision, aiming at its Extraordinary Appeal to be accepted and ruled by Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. On May 5, 2014 the Company presented its response to Citizen’s appeal to The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. On December, 19, 2014 Brazilian Federal Supreme Court overruled Citizen’s Extraordinary Appeal, ending the discussion regarding the injunction sought by Citizen which was definitely not granted. On February 19, 2015 the judge presiding the 31st Central Civil Court of the City of São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil ruled the case in its merits totally in favor of the Brazilian subsidiary, stating that MercadoLivre shall not be held responsible for any of Citizen’s pleas and allegations. Citizen did not appeal the mentioned decision and at the date of these interim condensed consolidated Financial Statements the case is closed. State of São Paulo Fraud Claim On June 12, 2007, a state prosecutor of the State of São Paulo, Brazil presented a claim against MercadoLivre. The state prosecutor alleges that MercadoLivre should be held liable for any fraud committed by sellers on MercadoLivre’s website, or responsible for damages suffered by buyers when purchasing an item on the Brazilian version of the MercadoLivre website. On June 26, 2009, the Lower Court Judge ruled in favor of the State of São Paulo prosecutor, declaring that MercadoLivre shall be held joint and severally liable for fraud committed by sellers and damages suffered by buyers when using the website, and ordering MercadoLivre remove from the Terms of Service of the Brazilian website any provision limiting MercadoLivre’s responsibility, with a penalty of approximately $2,500 per day of non-compliance. On June 29, 2009, the Company presented recourse to the lower court, which was not granted. On September 29, 2009, MercadoLivre presented an appeal and requested to suspend the effects of the ruling issued by the lower court until the appeal is decided by State Court of Appeals, which request was granted on December 1, 2009. On May 23, 2014 the State Court of Appeals issued its ruling stating that MercadoLivre shall not be held responsible for the quality, nature or defective products or services purchased through the Brazilian website. While the decision is not clear, it could be understood that the State Court of Appeals ruled that MercadoLivre could be held joint and severally liable for fraud committed by sellers buyers when using the website. On June 13, 2014, MercadoLivre filed a motion to clarify the decision. On October 6, 2014, the State Court of Appeals overruled MercadoLivre’s motion to clarify its decision. The Company appealed the decision to the Brazilian Federal Superior Court of Justice. As of the date of this report the Company appeal to the Brazilian Federal Superior Court of Justice was still being processed before the State Court of Appeals. On March 23, 2015 the State of São Paulo Prosecutor and MercadoLivre have settled the case by agreeing that MercadoLivre (i) will not be held liable for the quality, nature or defective products or services purchased through the Brazilian website, and/or damages suffered by buyers for purchases made using the website and paid directly to sellers, and (ii) will be jointly liable when buyer used MercadoPago in a purchase made through the website and liable for MercadoLivre’s own services. The parties filed a joint petition to get the homologation of the settlement, which is still pending. In the opinion of the Company´s management and its legal counsel the risk of loss is remote. City of São Paulo Tax Claim In 2007 São Paulo tax authorities have asserted taxes and fines against our Brazilian subsidiary relating to the period from 2005 to 2007 in an approximate amount of $5.9 million according to the exchange rate in effect at that time. In 2007, the Company presented administrative defenses against the authorities’ claim and the tax authorities ruled against the Brazilian subsidiary. In 2009, the Company presented an appeal to the Conselho Municipal de Tributos or São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes which reduced the fine. On February 11, 2011, the Company appealed this decision to the Câmaras Reunidas do Egrégio Conselho Municipal de Tributos or Superior Chamber of the São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes which affirmed the reduction of the fine. As of the date of these interim condensed consolidated financial statements, the total amount of the claim is approximately $5.8 million including surcharges and interest. With this decision the administrative stage is finished. On August 15, 2011, the Company made a deposit in court of approximately R$ 9.5 million, which including accrued interests amounted to R$ 10.4 million or $3.2 million, according to the exchange rate at March 31, 2015, and filed a lawsuit in 8th Public Treasury Court of the County of São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil, to contest the taxes and fines asserted by the Tax Authorities. As of March 31, 2015, the 8th Public Treasury Court of the County of São Paulo ruling was still pending. In September 2012 São Paulo tax authorities have asserted taxes and fines against our Brazilian subsidiary related to our Brazilian subsidiary’s activities in São Paulo for the period from 2007 through 2010. On July 27, 2012, the Company presented administrative defenses against the authorities’ claim. On February 2, 2013, São Paulo tax authorities ruled against the Brazilian subsidiary maintaining claimed taxes and fines. On March 4, 2013, the Company presented an appeal to the Conselho Municipal de Tributos or São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes. On August 23, 2013, the Câmaras Reunidas do Egrégio Conselho Municipal de Tributos or Superior Chamber of the São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes ruled against the Company’s appeal. On September 5, 2013, the Company presented a special appeal to the Superior Chamber of the São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes. On October 18, 2013, the mentioned appeal was denied to our Brazilian subsidiary and confirmed the fines. With this decision the administrative stage is finished. On November 13, 2013, the Company filed a lawsuit before the 9th Treasury Court of the City of São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil, to contest the taxes and fines asserted by the Tax Authorities. On November 14, 2013, the Company made a deposit in court related to the lawsuit filed, of approximately R$41 million or $12.8 million, according to the exchange rate at March 31, 2015. On January 28, 2014 São Paulo Municipal Council was summoned and on April 8, 2014 the São Paulo Municipal Council presented its defense. On April 24, 2014 the Company presented its response to the mentioned defense. As of March 31, 2015, the lower court’s ruling was still pending. In January 2005 the Brazilian subsidiary moved its operations to Santana de Parnaíba City, Brazil and began paying taxes to that jurisdiction and therefore the Company believes that has strong defenses to the claims of the São Paulo authorities with respect to these periods. The Company’s management and its legal counsel believe that the risk of loss is remote, and as a result, has not reserved any provisions for these claims. The collection date of the legal deposits cannot be determined since it will depend on the actual duration of the related legal proceedings. Brazilian Federal Tax Claims On September 2, 2011, the Brazilian Federal tax authority has asserted taxes and fines against our Brazilian subsidiary relating to the income tax for the 2006 period in an approximate amount of R$5.2 million or $1.6 million, according to the exchange rate at March 31, 2015. On September 30, 2011 the Company presented administrative defenses against the authorities’ claim. On August 24, 2012 the Company presented its appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals (CARF — Conselho Administrativo de Recursos Fiscais) against the tax authorities’ claims. On December 5, 2013, the Board of Tax Appeals ruled against MercadoLivre’s appeal. As of the date of issuance of these interim condensed consolidated financial statements the Superior Administrative Court of Tax Appeals ruling was still pending. The Company’s management and its legal counsel believe that the tax position adopted is more likely than not, based on the technical merits of the tax position, that it will be sustained, and as a result, the Company has not recorded any liability for this claim. State of Rio de Janeiro Customer Service Level Claim On August 19, 2011, a state prosecutor of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil presented a claim against the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary. The state prosecutor alleges that the Brazilian subsidiary should improve our customer service level and provide (among other things) a telephone number for customer support and requested an injunction against our Brazilian subsidiary. On October 22, 2012, a lower court judge ruled in favor of the Company and dismissed the claim against the Company. The Public Prosecutor appealed the decision and the Company presented its defense on December 12, 2012. On April 9, 2013, the State Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Company confirming the dismissal of the claim. On May 28, 2013 the decision was appealed by the state prosecutor to the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice and the Company presented its response on July 2, 2013. As of March 31, 2015, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice ruling was still pending. In the opinion of the Company’s management and its legal counsel the risk of loss is remote. State of Rio Grande do Sul Service Claim On November 20, 2013, a state prosecutor of the County of Porto Alegre, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, presented a claim against our Brazilian subsidiary before the 15th Civil Court of Porto Alegre, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The state prosecutor alleged that MercadoLivre should be held liable for any offer or sale of any unlawful products or services through its website. A preliminary injunction was granted on November 25, 2013 ordering the Brazilian subsidiary to monitor and prevent any offer of unlawful products or services. On January 22, 2014, the Brazilian subsidiary was summoned. On March 11, 2014, the Company presented its defense. On March 24, 2014, the Company filed an appeal against the preliminary injunction before the State Court of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, and on March 26, 2014 it was granted a motion to stay, revoking temporarily the effects of the injunction until the final ruling of the Interlocutory Appeal. On October 16, 2014, the State Court of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, ruled the Interlocutory Appeal in favor of the Brazilian subsidiary, revoking definitely the injunction. As of the date of issuance of these interim condensed consolidated financial statements the case merits’ ruling by the 15th Civil Court of Porto Alegre was still pending. In the opinion of the Company’s management the risk of losing the case is reasonably possible, but not probable. Other third parties have from time to time claimed, and others may claim in the future, that the Company was responsible for fraud committed against them, or that the Company has infringed their intellectual property rights. The underlying laws with respect to the potential liability of online intermediaries like the Company are unclear in the jurisdictions where the Company operates. Management believes that additional lawsuits alleging that the Company has violated copyright or trademark laws will be filed against the Company in the future. Intellectual property and regulatory claims, whether meritorious or not, are time consuming and costly to resolve, require significant amounts of management time, could require expensive changes in the Company’s methods of doing business, or could require the Company to enter into costly royalty or licensing agreements. The Company may be subject to patent disputes, and be subject to patent infringement claims as the Company’s services expand in scope and complexity. In particular, the Company may face additional patent infringement claims involving various aspects of the payments businesses. From time to time, the Company is involved in other disputes or regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of business. The number and significance of these disputes and inquiries are increasing as the Company’s business expands and the Company grows larger.

7. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation and Other Legal Matters

The Company is subject to certain contingent liabilities with respect to existing or potential claims, lawsuits and other proceedings. The Company accrues liabilities when it considers probable that future costs will be incurred and such costs can be reasonably estimated. The proceeding-related reserve is based on developments to date and historical information related to actions filed against the Company. As of March 31, 2015, the Company had established reserves for proceeding-related contingencies of $2,708 thousands to cover legal actions against the Company in which its Management has assessed the likelihood of a final adverse outcome as probable. In addition, as of March 31, 2015 the Company and its subsidiaries are subject to certain legal actions considered by the Company’s management and its legal counsels to be reasonably possible for an aggregate amount up to $4,451 thousands.

No loss amount has been accrued for such reasonably possible legal actions of which most significant (individually or in the aggregate) are described below.

As of March 31, 2015, there were 41 lawsuits pending against our Argentine subsidiary in the Argentine ordinary courts and 767 pending claims in the Argentine Consumer Protection Agencies, where a lawyer is not required to file or pursue a claim.

As of March 31, 2015, there were two claims pending against our Mexican subsidiaries in the Mexican ordinary courts and 57 claims pending against our Mexican subsidiary in the Mexican Consumer Protection Agencies, where a lawyer is not required to file or pursue a claim.

As of March 31, 2015, 641 legal actions were pending in the Brazilian ordinary courts. In addition, as of March 31, 2015, there were 2,672 cases still pending in Brazilian consumer courts. Filing and pursuing of an action before Brazilian consumer courts do not require the assistance of a lawyer. In most of the cases filed against the Company, the plaintiffs asserted that the Company was responsible for fraud committed against them, or responsible for damages suffered when purchasing an item on the Company’s website, or when using MercadoPago, in other companies’ websites.

On August 25, 2010, Citizen Watch do Brasil S/A, or Citizen, sued Brazilian subsidiaries in the 31th Central Civil Court State of São Paulo, Brazil. Citizen alleged that the Brazilian subsidiaries were infringing Citizen’s trademarks as a result of users selling allegedly counterfeit Citizen watches through the Brazilian page of the Brazilian subsidiaries’ website. Citizen sought an order enjoining the sale of Citizen-branded watches on the Brazilian subsidiaries’ Marketplace with a $6,000 daily non-compliance penalty. On September 23, 2010, the Brazilian subsidiaries were summoned of an injunction granted to prohibit the offer of Citizen products on its platform, but the penalty was established at $6,000 per day. On September 26, 2010, the Brazilian subsidiaries presented their defense and appealed the decision of the injunction relief to the State Court of Appeals of São Paulo on September 27, 2010. On October 22, 2010 the injunction granted to Citizen was suspended. On March 23, 2011, the Company’s appeal regarding the injunction granted to Citizen was ruled in favor of the Brazilian subsidiaries. On May 4, 2011, Citizen presented a motion to clarify the decision but it was dismissed on March 14, 2012. On May 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a special recourse related to the injunction relief to the State Court of Appeals, and the Brazilian subsidiaries presented their defense on August 16, 2012 which was not admitted. In September 2012, the Plaintiff filed a legal action against the Brazilian subsidiaries with same arguments alleged in the injunction request and seeking for compensatory and statutory damages and defenses were presented on March 20, 2013. On January 9, 2013, Citizen presented a motion to request the appeal to be ruled by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça). On March 1, 2013, the Company presented its response to that appeal. On August 27, 2013, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice ruled against Citizen’s appeal. The Superior Court of Justice ruled that the Brazilian subsidiaries were not responsible for alleged infringement of intellectual property rights by its users and that they should comply with the “notice and take down” procedure it already have in place.

On October 4, 2013, Citizen presented a motion to clarify mentioned decision issued by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice and such motion was denied on November 11, 2013. Citizen then filed, on November 25, 2013, an Extraordinary Appeal aiming the decision rendered by Brazilian Superior Court of Justice to be reviewed by Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. On February 21, 2014, Brazilian subsidiaries presented its response to Citizen’s Extraordinary Appeal. On March 10, 2014, Citizen’s extraordinary appeal was not accepted by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice and, on March 26, 2014, Citizen filed an appeal against such decision, aiming at its Extraordinary Appeal to be accepted and ruled by Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. On May 5, 2014 the Company presented its response to Citizen’s appeal to The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. On December, 19, 2014 Brazilian Federal Supreme Court overruled Citizen’s Extraordinary Appeal, ending the discussion regarding the injunction sought by Citizen which was definitely not granted. On February 19, 2015 the judge presiding the 31st Central Civil Court of the City of São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil ruled the case in its merits totally in favor of the Brazilian subsidiary, stating that MercadoLivre shall not be held responsible for any of Citizen’s pleas and allegations. Citizen did not appeal the mentioned decision and at the date of these interim condensed consolidated Financial Statements the case is closed.

State of São Paulo Fraud Claim

On June 12, 2007, a state prosecutor of the State of São Paulo, Brazil presented a claim against MercadoLivre. The state prosecutor alleges that MercadoLivre should be held liable for any fraud committed by sellers on MercadoLivre’s website, or responsible for damages suffered by buyers when purchasing an item on the Brazilian version of the MercadoLivre website. On June 26, 2009, the Lower Court Judge ruled in favor of the State of São Paulo prosecutor, declaring that MercadoLivre shall be held joint and severally liable for fraud committed by sellers and damages suffered by buyers when using the website, and ordering MercadoLivre remove from the Terms of Service of the Brazilian website any provision limiting MercadoLivre’s responsibility, with a penalty of approximately $2,500 per day of non-compliance. On June 29, 2009, the Company presented recourse to the lower court, which was not granted. On September 29, 2009, MercadoLivre presented an appeal and requested to suspend the effects of the ruling issued by the lower court until the appeal is decided by State Court of Appeals, which request was granted on December 1, 2009. On May 23, 2014 the State Court of Appeals issued its ruling stating that MercadoLivre shall not be held responsible for the quality, nature or defective products or services purchased through the Brazilian website. While the decision is not clear, it could be understood that the State Court of Appeals ruled that MercadoLivre could be held joint and severally liable for fraud committed by sellers buyers when using the website. On June 13, 2014, MercadoLivre filed a motion to clarify the decision. On October 6, 2014, the State Court of Appeals overruled MercadoLivre’s motion to clarify its decision. The Company appealed the decision to the Brazilian Federal Superior Court of Justice. As of the date of this report the Company appeal to the Brazilian Federal Superior Court of Justice was still being processed before the State Court of Appeals. On March 23, 2015 the State of São Paulo Prosecutor and MercadoLivre have settled the case by agreeing that MercadoLivre (i) will not be held liable for the quality, nature or defective products or services purchased through the Brazilian website, and/or damages suffered by buyers for purchases made using the website and paid directly to sellers, and (ii) will be jointly liable when buyer used MercadoPago in a purchase made through the website and liable for MercadoLivre’s own services. The parties filed a joint petition to get the homologation of the settlement, which is still pending. In the opinion of the Company´s management and its legal counsel the risk of loss is remote.

City of São Paulo Tax Claim

In 2007 São Paulo tax authorities have asserted taxes and fines against our Brazilian subsidiary relating to the period from 2005 to 2007 in an approximate amount of $5.9 million according to the exchange rate in effect at that time. In 2007, the Company presented administrative defenses against the authorities’ claim and the tax authorities ruled against the Brazilian subsidiary. In 2009, the Company presented an appeal to the Conselho Municipal de Tributos or São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes which reduced the fine. On February 11, 2011, the Company appealed this decision to the Câmaras Reunidas do Egrégio Conselho Municipal de Tributos or Superior Chamber of the São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes which affirmed the reduction of the fine. As of the date of these interim condensed consolidated financial statements, the total amount of the claim is approximately $5.8 million including surcharges and interest. With this decision the administrative stage is finished. On August 15, 2011, the Company made a deposit in court of approximately R$ 9.5 million, which including accrued interests amounted to R$ 10.4 million or $3.2 million, according to the exchange rate at March 31, 2015, and filed a lawsuit in 8th Public Treasury Court of the County of São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil, to contest the taxes and fines asserted by the Tax Authorities. As of March 31, 2015, the 8th Public Treasury Court of the County of São Paulo ruling was still pending.

In September 2012 São Paulo tax authorities have asserted taxes and fines against our Brazilian subsidiary related to our Brazilian subsidiary’s activities in São Paulo for the period from 2007 through 2010. On July 27, 2012, the Company presented administrative defenses against the authorities’ claim. On February 2, 2013, São Paulo tax authorities ruled against the Brazilian subsidiary maintaining claimed taxes and fines. On March 4, 2013, the Company presented an appeal to the Conselho Municipal de Tributos or São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes. On August 23, 2013, the Câmaras Reunidas do Egrégio Conselho Municipal de Tributos or Superior Chamber of the São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes ruled against the Company’s appeal. On September 5, 2013, the Company presented a special appeal to the Superior Chamber of the São Paulo Municipal Council of Taxes. On October 18, 2013, the mentioned appeal was denied to our Brazilian subsidiary and confirmed the fines. With this decision the administrative stage is finished. On November 13, 2013, the Company filed a lawsuit before the 9th Treasury Court of the City of São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil, to contest the taxes and fines asserted by the Tax Authorities. On November 14, 2013, the Company made a deposit in court related to the lawsuit filed, of approximately R$41 million or $12.8 million, according to the exchange rate at March 31, 2015. On January 28, 2014 São Paulo Municipal Council was summoned and on April 8, 2014 the São Paulo Municipal Council presented its defense. On April 24, 2014 the Company presented its response to the mentioned defense. As of March 31, 2015, the lower court’s ruling was still pending.

In January 2005 the Brazilian subsidiary moved its operations to Santana de Parnaíba City, Brazil and began paying taxes to that jurisdiction and therefore the Company believes that has strong defenses to the claims of the São Paulo authorities with respect to these periods.

The Company’s management and its legal counsel believe that the risk of loss is remote, and as a result, has not reserved any provisions for these claims.

The collection date of the legal deposits cannot be determined since it will depend on the actual duration of the related legal proceedings.

Brazilian Federal Tax Claims

On September 2, 2011, the Brazilian Federal tax authority has asserted taxes and fines against our Brazilian subsidiary relating to the income tax for the 2006 period in an approximate amount of R$5.2 million or $1.6 million, according to the exchange rate at March 31, 2015. On September 30, 2011 the Company presented administrative defenses against the authorities’ claim. On August 24, 2012 the Company presented its appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals (CARF — Conselho Administrativo de Recursos Fiscais) against the tax authorities’ claims. On December 5, 2013, the Board of Tax Appeals ruled against MercadoLivre’s appeal. As of the date of issuance of these interim condensed consolidated financial statements the Superior Administrative Court of Tax Appeals ruling was still pending. The Company’s management and its legal counsel believe that the tax position adopted is more likely than not, based on the technical merits of the tax position, that it will be sustained, and as a result, the Company has not recorded any liability for this claim.

State of Rio de Janeiro Customer Service Level Claim

On August 19, 2011, a state prosecutor of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil presented a claim against the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary. The state prosecutor alleges that the Brazilian subsidiary should improve our customer service level and provide (among other things) a telephone number for customer support and requested an injunction against our Brazilian subsidiary. On October 22, 2012, a lower court judge ruled in favor of the Company and dismissed the claim against the Company. The Public Prosecutor appealed the decision and the Company presented its defense on December 12, 2012. On April 9, 2013, the State Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Company confirming the dismissal of the claim. On May 28, 2013 the decision was appealed by the state prosecutor to the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice and the Company presented its response on July 2, 2013. As of March 31, 2015, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice ruling was still pending. In the opinion of the Company’s management and its legal counsel the risk of loss is remote.

State of Rio Grande do Sul Service Claim

On November 20, 2013, a state prosecutor of the County of Porto Alegre, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, presented a claim against our Brazilian subsidiary before the 15th Civil Court of Porto Alegre, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The state prosecutor alleged that MercadoLivre should be held liable for any offer or sale of any unlawful products or services through its website. A preliminary injunction was granted on November 25, 2013 ordering the Brazilian subsidiary to monitor and prevent any offer of unlawful products or services. On January 22, 2014, the Brazilian subsidiary was summoned. On March 11, 2014, the Company presented its defense. On March 24, 2014, the Company filed an appeal against the preliminary injunction before the State Court of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, and on March 26, 2014 it was granted a motion to stay, revoking temporarily the effects of the injunction until the final ruling of the Interlocutory Appeal. On October 16, 2014, the State Court of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, ruled the Interlocutory Appeal in favor of the Brazilian subsidiary, revoking definitely the injunction. As of the date of issuance of these interim condensed consolidated financial statements the case merits’ ruling by the 15th Civil Court of Porto Alegre was still pending. In the opinion of the Company’s management the risk of losing the case is reasonably possible, but not probable.

Other third parties have from time to time claimed, and others may claim in the future, that the Company was responsible for fraud committed against them, or that the Company has infringed their intellectual property rights. The underlying laws with respect to the potential liability of online intermediaries like the Company are unclear in the jurisdictions where the Company operates. Management believes that additional lawsuits alleging that the Company has violated copyright or trademark laws will be filed against the Company in the future.

Intellectual property and regulatory claims, whether meritorious or not, are time consuming and costly to resolve, require significant amounts of management time, could require expensive changes in the Company’s methods of doing business, or could require the Company to enter into costly royalty or licensing agreements. The Company may be subject to patent disputes, and be subject to patent infringement claims as the Company’s services expand in scope and complexity. In particular, the Company may face additional patent infringement claims involving various aspects of the payments businesses.

From time to time, the Company is involved in other disputes or regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of business. The number and significance of these disputes and inquiries are increasing as the Company’s business expands and the Company grows larger.