Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Mar. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 9. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters The Company is subject to certain legal proceedings described below, and from time to time may be involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations, and proceedings relating to contractual disputes, intellectual property rights, employment matters, regulatory compliance matters, and other litigation matters relating to various claims that arise in the normal course of business. The Company determines whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be accrued by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company assesses its potential liability by analyzing specific litigation and regulatory matters using reasonably available information. The Company develops its views on estimated losses in consultation with inside and outside counsel, which involves a subjective analysis of potential results and outcomes, assuming various combinations of appropriate litigation and settlement strategies. Actual claims could settle or be adjudicated against the Company in the future for materially different amounts than the Company has accrued due to the inherently unpredictable nature of litigation. Legal fees are expensed in the period in which they are incurred. Patent Infringement Matter On April 25, 2017, Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (together, “Uniloc”) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas two actions against the Company alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,804,948; 7,853,000; and 8,571,194 by RingCentral’s Glip unified communications application. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Company has infringed the patents, damages according to proof, injunctive relief, as well as their costs, attorney’s fees, expenses and interest. On October 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or transfer requesting that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In response to the motion, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on October 24, 2017. The Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss or transfer on November 15, 2017. Although briefing on that motion was completed, the motion was not decided. On February 5, 2018, Uniloc moved to stay the litigation pending the resolution of certain third-party inter partes review proceedings (“IPRs”) before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On February 9, 2018, the court stayed the litigation pending resolution of the IPRs without prejudice to or waiver of the Company’s motion to dismiss or transfer. The parties entered into a settlement agreement and filed a Voluntary Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. The court entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice on January 2, 2024. CIPA Matter On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff Meena Reuben (“Reuben”) filed a complaint against the Company for a putative class action lawsuit in California Superior Court for San Mateo County. The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a class of individuals for whom, while they were in California, the Company allegedly intercepted and recorded communications between individuals and the Company’s customers without the individual’s consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) Sections 631 and 632.7. Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged violation of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs, and other unspecified amount of damages. The parties participated in mediation on August 24, 2021. On September 16, 2021, Reuben filed an amended complaint. The Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on October 18, 2021, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings on January 23, 2023. The Court overruled the Company’s demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the parties are now engaged in discovery. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on February 16, 2024, and a hearing on the motion is set for August 2, 2024. Based on the information known by the Company as of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Other Matter On June 14, 2019, the Company filed suit in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, against Bright Pattern, Inc. and two of its officers, alleging that the defendants negotiated a potential acquisition of Bright Pattern by RingCentral fraudulently and in bad faith. The Company sought its costs incurred in negotiating under the Letter of Intent (“LOI”) that the parties entered into and damages for lost opportunity as a result of forgoing another acquisition opportunity, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 26, 2019, Bright Pattern filed a cross-complaint against the Company and two of its executive officers alleging breach of the LOI as well as tort claims arising from the Company’s allegedly inducing Bright Pattern to enter into the LOI and subsequent extensions while allegedly misstating the timeframe for the proposed transaction. As damages, Bright Pattern sought audit fees it allegedly incurred, a $5.0 million break-up fee, its alleged “cash burn” during the negotiations, and unspecified lost opportunity damages. The Company filed a demurrer to Bright Pattern’s amended cross-complaint, as well as a related motion to strike. On May 7, 2020, the court denied both the motion to strike and demurrer. On July 19, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the proceedings, which the court granted on July 20, 2022. On October 19, 2023, Bright Pattern moved to lift the stay. The parties entered into a settlement agreement and filed a Request for Dismissal with Prejudice, in which they agreed to dismiss the action, and all claims and counterclaims alleged therein, with prejudice. The court entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice on January 9, 2024.