XML 35 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Interest Rate Lock Commitments We have entered into IRLCs with prospective borrowers under our mortgage origination business whereby we commit to lend a certain loan amount under specific terms and at a specific interest rate to the borrower. These commitments are treated as derivatives and are carried at fair value. For additional information regarding our IRLCs, see Note 3 of our notes to condensed consolidated financial statements. Lease Commitments We have entered into various non-cancelable operating lease agreements for certain of our office space and equipment with original lease periods expiring between 2021 and 2030. For additional information regarding our lease agreements, see Note 13 in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. Purchase Commitments Purchase commitments primarily include various non-cancelable agreements to purchase content related to our mobile applications and websites and certain cloud computing services as well as homes we are under contract to purchase through Zillow Offers but that have not closed as of the respective date. As of June 30, 2021, the value of homes under contract that have not closed was $1.2 billion. Letters of Credit As of June 30, 2021, we have outstanding letters of credit of approximately $16.9 million, which secure our lease obligations in connection with certain of our office space operating leases. Surety Bonds In the course of business, we are required to provide financial commitments in the form of surety bonds to third parties as a guarantee of our performance on and our compliance with certain obligations. If we were to fail to perform or comply with these obligations, any draws upon surety bonds issued on our behalf would then trigger our payment obligation to the surety bond issuer. We have outstanding surety bonds issued for our benefit of approximately $10.6 million and $10.1 million, respectively, as of June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020. Legal Proceedings We are involved in a number of legal proceedings concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our business activities, some of which are at preliminary stages and some of which seek an indeterminate amount of damages. We regularly evaluate the status of legal proceedings in which we are involved to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred to determine if accruals are appropriate. We further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of possible loss or range of loss can be made if accruals are not appropriate. For certain cases described below, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in preliminary stages; (ii) specific damages have not been sought; (iii) damages sought are, in our view, unsupported and/or exaggerated; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories presented. For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flow. For the matters discussed below, we have not recorded any material accruals as of June 30, 2021 or December 31, 2020. In August and September 2017, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against us and certain of our executive officers, alleging, among other things, violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased our common stock between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017. One of those purported class actions, captioned Vargosko v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The other purported class action lawsuit, captioned Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaints allege, among other things, that during the period between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017, we issued materially false and misleading statements regarding our business practices. The complaints seek to recover, among other things, alleged damages sustained by the purported class members as a result of the alleged misconduct. In November 2017, an amended complaint was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the Shotwell v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit, extending the beginning of the class period to November 17, 2014. In January 2018, the Vargosko v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and consolidated with the Shotwell v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit. In February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, and in April 2018, we filed our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In October 2018, our motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, and in November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which we moved to dismiss in December 2018. On April 19, 2019, our motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint was denied, and we filed our answer to the second amended complaint on May 3, 2019. On October 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which was granted by the District Court on October 28, 2020. On February 17, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied our petition for review of that decision. We have denied the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend the claims in this lawsuit. We do not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss will be incurred related to this lawsuit. In October and November 2017 and January and February 2018, four shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County, against certain of our executive officers and directors seeking unspecified damages on behalf of the Company and certain other relief, such as reform to corporate governance practices. The plaintiffs in the derivative suits (in which the Company is a nominal defendant) allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with oversight of the Company’s public statements and legal compliance, and as a result of the breach of such fiduciary duties, the Company was damaged, and defendants were unjustly enriched. Certain of the plaintiffs also allege, among other things, violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and waste of corporate assets. On February 5, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington consolidated the two federal shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in that court. On February 16, 2018, the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County, consolidated the two shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in that court. All four of the shareholder derivative lawsuits were stayed until our motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint in the securities class action lawsuit discussed above was denied in April 2019. On July 8, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated federal derivative lawsuit filed a consolidated shareholder derivative complaint, which we moved to dismiss on August 22, 2019. On February 28, 2020, our motion to dismiss the consolidated federal shareholder derivative complaint was denied. On May 18, 2020, we filed an answer in the consolidated federal derivative lawsuit. On August 24, 2020, we filed an answer in the consolidated state derivative matter. On February 16, 2021, the court in the consolidated state derivative matter stayed the action. On March 5, 2021, a new shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against certain of our executive officers and directors seeking unspecified damages on behalf of the Company and certain other relief, such as reform to corporate governance practices, alleging, among other things, violations of federal securities laws. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington formally consolidated the new lawsuit with the four other federal shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in that court on June 15, 2021. The defendants intend to deny the allegations of wrongdoing and vigorously defend the claims in this consolidated lawsuit. We do not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss will be incurred related to these derivative matters. On September 17, 2019, International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging, among other things, that the Company has infringed and continues to willfully infringe seven patents held by IBM and seeks unspecified damages, including a request that the amount of compensatory damages be trebled, injunctive relief and costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. On November 8, 2019, we filed a motion to transfer venue and/or to dismiss the complaint. On December 2, 2019, IBM filed an amended complaint, and on December 16, 2019, we filed a renewed motion to transfer venue and/or to dismiss the complaint. The Company’s motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington was granted on May 28, 2020. We filed our answer with counterclaims in response to the amended complaint on June 11, 2020. On July 2, 2020, IBM filed a motion to dismiss our counterclaims. In response to IBM’s motion, on July 22, 2020, we filed an amended answer with counterclaims. On August 12, 2020, IBM filed its answer to our counterclaims. On September 18, 2020, we filed four inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions before the U.S. Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”) seeking the Board’s review of the patentability with respect to three of the patents asserted by IBM in the lawsuit. On March 15, 2021, the PTAB instituted inter partes review proceedings with respect to two of the three patents for which we filed petitions. On March 22, 2021, the PTAB denied institution with respect to the last of the three patents for which we filed an IPR. On April 21, 2021, we filed a request for rehearing of the PTAB decision denying institution. Our request for a rehearing was denied by the court on May 27, 2021. On January 22, 2021, the court partially stayed the action with respect to all patents for which we filed an IPR and set forth a motion schedule. On March 8, 2021, IBM filed its second amended complaint. On March 25, 2021, we filed an amended motion for judgment on the pleadings. On July 15, 2021, the court rendered an order in connection with the motion for judgment on the pleadings finding in our favor on two of the four patents on which we filed our motion. On July 28, 2021, we filed our answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims to IBM’s second amended complaint. We deny the allegations of any wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend the claims in the lawsuit. There is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred related to these IBM complaints; however, the possible loss or range of loss is not estimable. On July 21, 2020, IBM filed a second action against us in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging, among other things that the Company has infringed and continues to willfully infringe five patents held by IBM and seeks unspecified damages. On September 14, 2020, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed in the action, to which IBM responded by the filing of an amended complaint on November 5, 2020. On December 18, 2020, we filed a motion to dismiss IBM’s first amended complaint. On December 23, 2020, the Court issued a written order staying this case in full. On July 23, 2021, we filed for inter partes review with the United States Patent and Trademark Office with respect to a patent included in the second lawsuit. We deny the allegations of any wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend the claims in the lawsuit. There is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred related to these IBM complaints; however, the possible loss or range of loss is not estimable. In addition to the matters discussed above, from time to time, we are involved in litigation and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. Although we cannot be certain of the outcome of any such litigation or claims, nor the amount of damages and exposure that we could incur, we currently believe that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flow. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, we enter into contractual arrangements under which we agree to provide indemnification of varying scope and terms to business partners and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of the breach of such agreements and out of intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, we have agreements that indemnify certain issuers of surety bonds against losses that they may incur as a result of executing surety bonds on our behalf. For our indemnification arrangements, payment may be conditional on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the particular contract. Further, our obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some instances, we may have recourse against third parties for certain payments. In addition, we have indemnification agreements with certain of our directors and executive officers that require us, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers. The terms of such obligations may vary.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration