XML 30 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2

CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
CONTINGENCIES | CONTINGENCIES In the ordinary course of business, Vimeo is, and from time to time may become, a party to various legal proceedings. Vimeo establishes reserves for specific legal matters when it determines that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the loss is reasonably estimable. Management has also identified certain other legal matters where it believes an unfavorable outcome is not probable and, therefore, no reserve is established. Although management currently believes that resolving claims against Vimeo, including claims where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible, will not have a material impact on the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of Vimeo, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management's view of these matters may change in the future. Vimeo also evaluates other contingent matters, including income and non-income tax contingencies, to assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and estimated extent of potential loss. It is possible that an unfavorable outcome of one or more of these lawsuits or other contingencies could have a material impact on the liquidity, results of operations or financial condition of Vimeo. EMI/Capitol Records Copyright Infringement Litigation In December 2009, a group of music publishers owned by EMI Music Publishing (now owned by Sony/ATV Music Publishing, a subsidiary of Sony Entertainment) and a group of then EMI-affiliated record companies, including Capitol Records (now owned by Universal Music Group), filed two lawsuits against Vimeo and its former owner, Connected Ventures, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. See Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, No. 09 Civ. 10101 (S.D.N.Y.) and EMI Blackwood Music, Inc. v. Vimeo, LLC, No. 09 Civ. 10105 (S.D.N.Y.). In both cases, plaintiffs allege that Vimeo infringed their music copyrights (in the publishers’ musical compositions and the record companies’ sound recordings) by hosting and streaming videos uploaded by users (and in certain cases, former employees) featuring their musical works. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief and monetary damages. The initial complaints identified 199 videos as infringing (which Vimeo removed post-suit). Prior to suit, plaintiffs did not avail themselves of their right to submit a takedown notice to Vimeo pursuant to the online safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ("DMCA"), which limits the liability of online service providers for copyright infringement of their users when the provider takes certain measures. Vimeo asserts that the DMCA limits its liability because it complies with the DMCA and plaintiffs failed to submit takedown notices. Plaintiffs disagree, asserting various theories as to why the DMCA may not apply to some or all of the videos-in-suit. The district court bifurcated proceedings and required the parties to first litigate the issue of whether Vimeo satisfied the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions. On September 18, 2013, the district court granted partial summary judgment to Vimeo on 144 of the 199 original videos-in-suit on the ground that Vimeo complied with the threshold requirements of the DMCA and that there was no evidence that a Vimeo employee had watched the videos in question such that Vimeo had actual or "red flag" knowledge of infringement, which would disqualify the DMCA’s application. The court denied summary judgment as to 35 videos-in-suit on the ground that there was a material question of fact as to whether Vimeo had "red flag" knowledge of infringement based upon employees having watched all or part of these videos. The court further held that the DMCA did not apply to the record companies’ state-law claims regarding sound recordings fixed before February 1972; a trial was necessary to determine whether Vimeo was liable for employees who uploaded approximately 20 videos; and that plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their complaints to add over 1,500 videos allegedly infringing their copyrights (which Vimeo removed after receiving plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint). Vimeo sought and obtained the right to appeal certain issues on an interlocutory basis to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 16, 2016, the Second Circuit held that (1) the district court had applied the incorrect summary-judgment standard for "red flag" infringement and that evidence that an employee watched all or part of a video containing plaintiffs’ music did not raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether Vimeo had "red flag" knowledge in such video; (2) the DMCA applies to state-law copyright infringement claims predicated on pre-1972 sound recordings; and (3) on an issue raised by plaintiffs in their cross-appeal, the record did not show that Vimeo was willfully blind towards infringing activity taking place on its platform. As a result of these rulings, the Second Circuit partially vacated the district court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its judgment. On March 31, 2018, the district court granted Vimeo’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ state-law unfair competition claims on the grounds that they were state-law copyright claims covered by the DMCA per the Second Circuit’s judgment. On May 28, 2021, the district court granted Vimeo summary judgment as to videos for which the sole remaining basis of liability the assertion that Vimeo had “red flag” knowledge of infringement. On August 26, 2021, the district court approved a stipulation whereby plaintiffs agreed to conditionally dismiss all remaining claims to allow a final judgment to issue. Under the stipulation, plaintiffs may refile their claims regarding the alleged employee-uploaded videos if the Second Circuit reverses the district court’s other rulings in whole or in part. On November 1, 2021, the district court entered a final judgment adopting the terms of the parties' stipulation. On November 29, 2021, plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed. Vimeo believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are without merit and will defend vigorously against them. RTI Copyright Litigation Between 2012 and 2017, Italian broadcaster Reti Televisive Italiane s.p.a. and an affiliate thereof (collectively, "RTI") filed four lawsuits for copyright infringement against Vimeo in the Civil Court of Rome. See Reti Televisive Italiane s.p.a. v. Vimeo, LLC, Cause Nos. 23732/12, 62343/2015, and 59780/2017 (Rome Civil Court), and Medusa Film v. Vimeo, Inc., Cause No. 74775/2017 (Rome Civil Court). In each case, RTI asserts that Vimeo infringed its copyrights by hosting and streaming user-uploaded videos that allegedly contain RTI’s television or film programming, and seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and monetary damages. On January 15, 2019, the Civil Court of Rome concluded the first case (No. 23732/12) and entered a judgment against Vimeo, awarding RTI damages of EUR 8,500,000 plus interest and entering an injunction against Vimeo with respect to further acts of infringement. Vimeo filed an appeal and petitioned to stay the judgment pending appeal. On May 13, 2019, the Rome Court of Appeal stayed the judgment pending appeal. The appeal is currently pending. On June 2, 2019, the Civil Court of Rome concluded the second case (No. 62343/2015) and entered a judgment against Vimeo, awarding RTI damages of EUR 4,746,273 plus interest and entering an injunction against Vimeo as to further acts infringement. Vimeo filed an appeal and petitioned to stay the judgment pending appeal. The Rome Court of Appeal declined to stay the judgment. The appeal is currently pending. On October 26, 2020, RTI commenced a lawsuit against Vimeo in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to enforce the damages award of the June 2019 judgment. See Reti Televisive Italiane s.p.a. v. Vimeo, LLC, No. 20 Civ. 8954 (S.D.N.Y.). On December 22, 2020, Vimeo and RTI filed, and the district court entered, a stipulation and order staying the U.S. proceedings pending the final outcome of the appeals from the Italian judgment at issue. Proceedings in the third and fourth cases (Nos. 59780/2017 and 74775/2017, respectively) are pending before the Civil Court of Rome. Vimeo believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are without merit and will defend vigorously against them. Sony/Universal/Warner Copyright Litigation In March 2021, Sony Music Entertainment Italy (a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment Group), Warner Music Italia (a subsidiary of Warner Music Group), Universal Music Italia (a subsidiary of Universal Music Group), and Warner Music International Services (a subsidiary of Warner Music Group) filed a lawsuit against Vimeo in the Court of Milan alleging violations of Italian copyright and unfair competition laws. See Sony Music Entertainment Italy s.p.a. et al. v. Vimeo, Inc., Case No. 10977/2021 (Court of Milan, Business Division). The complaint alleges that Vimeo infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights by hosting and streaming user-uploaded videos that contain plaintiffs’ copyrighted works and that, upon notification of the alleged infringement, Vimeo employed a takedown process that did not comply with Italian law. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief. On November 3, 2021, Vimeo filed its initial brief. On November 23, 2021, the parties attended the initial hearing with the Court of Milan where the court set forth a briefing schedule. Vimeo believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will defend vigorously against them. Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act Litigation On September 9, 2019, Bradley Acaley filed, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, a putative class action complaint against Vimeo in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. See Bradley Acaley v. Vimeo, Inc., Acaley v. Vimeo.com, Inc., Case No. 2019 CH10873 (Ill. Cir. Ct.). Vimeo thereafter removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where it is now pending. See Bradley Acaley v. Vimeo, Inc., No. 19 Civ. 7164 (N.D. Ill.). In his complaint, plaintiff asserts that Vimeo’s Magisto mobile application collected facial biometric information in a manner that violated his rights under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and he seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and monetary damages. On May 29, 2022, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that will, subject to court approval, result in certain payments to class members in exchange for releases to Vimeo. On June 6, 2022, the case was, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, remanded from federal court back to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. On July 22, 2022, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Vimeo denies liability in connection with this lawsuit.

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 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 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 https://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 https://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