Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 11: Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Commitments. As of April 30, 2019 and January 31, 2019, non-cancelable purchase commitments with the Company’s contract manufacturers were $3.9 million and $4.2 million, respectively. In addition, as of April 30, 2019 and January 31, 2019, non-cancelable purchase commitments with GTC, a related party of the Company, were approximately $0.7 million and zero, respectively. (See Note 4: Balance Sheet Components above for additional information.) Legal Proceedings In addition to the litigation matters described below, from time to time, the Company may be involved in a variety of other 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. Defending such proceedings is costly and can impose a significant burden on management and employees, the Company may receive unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation, and there can be no assurances that favorable final outcomes will be obtained. 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. Legal fees are expensed in the period in which they are incurred. As of April 30, 2019, the Company did not have any material loss contingencies recorded in its consolidated financial statements. Berks County Litigation On January 21, 2016, the County of Berks, Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas naming the Company and 113 other telephone service providers as defendants (the “Berks County Litigation”), alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with alleged violations of the Pennsylvania 911 Emergency Communication Services Act (“PA 911 Act”) for failure to collect from subscribers and remit certain fees pursuant to the PA 911 Act. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the Company must comply with the PA 911 Act, compensatory and punitive damages and such other relief as the court may deem proper. The Company believes that the plaintiff’s claims are without merit since the Company has no employees, property or other indicia of a “substantial nexus” with the State of Pennsylvania. The Company intends to continue vigorously defending against this lawsuit. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Berks County Litigation is not estimable. Deep Green Wireless Litigation On June 8, 2016, plaintiff Deep Green Wireless LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Ooma, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE42,714 (the “Deep Green Wireless Patent”, and such litigation, the “Deep Green Wireless Litigation”). The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and other appropriate relief. In February 2017, the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, which proceeding has been stayed pending the outcome of an inter partes review of the Deep Green Wireless Patent by the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The PTAB has granted the Company’s motion for inter partes review of the Deep Green Wireless Patent, and on August 13, 2018 the PTAB heard oral arguments from each party. On December 17, 2018, the PTAB issued its final decision regarding the claims at issue in the Deep Green Wireless Litigation, in which it determined that all challenged claims of the ‘714 patent are obvious and unpatentable. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 19, 2019. Briefing is scheduled to commence on June 6, 2019. If the Federal Circuit rules in favor of the Company on appeal, we expect the Deep Green Wireless Litigation should be dismissed. Based on the Company’s current knowledge, and as confirmed by the PTAB’s final decision, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Deep Green Wireless Litigation is not estimable. Dolemba Litigation On September 4, 2018, plaintiff Scott Dolemba filed a putative class action complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. On May 21, 2019, the Company and plaintiff settled the complaint for an immaterial amount and the complaint was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. Oregon Tax Litigation On August 30, 2016, the Oregon Department of Revenue (the “DOR”) issued tax assessments against the Company for the Oregon Emergency Communications Tax (the “Tax”), which the DOR alleges Ooma should have collected from its subscribers in Oregon and remitted to the DOR during the period starting on January 1, 2013 and ending on March 31, 2016 (collectively, the “Assessments”). On November 28, 2016, the Company filed a complaint in the Oregon Tax Court, asserting that the Assessments against the Company is in violation of applicable Oregon law and are barred by the United States Constitution, and asking the Oregon Tax Court to abate the Assessments in full (the “Complaint”, and such dispute, the “Oregon Tax Litigation”). On February 10, 2017, the DOR filed an answer to the Complaint, and during April 2017, the Company voluntarily participated in an informal discovery process by providing certain information and documents to the DOR. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on September 29, 2017, and on December 13, 2017 the Court heard oral arguments from the parties regarding such motion. On March 27, 2018, the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court issued its decision denying the Company’s motion, and granting the DOR’s motion for summary judgment. Notwithstanding such decision, the Company believes that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution bars the application of the Tax and the Assessments to the Company, since the Company has no employees, property or other indicia of a “substantial nexus” with the State of Oregon. On June 12, 2018, the Company filed an appeal of the Magistrate Divisions decision and on October 12, 2018, the Company filed its motion for summary judgment with the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court. The DOR filed its motion for summary judgment on November 16, 2018. On January 17, 2019, the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court heard oral arguments on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, and no decision has been issued. The Company will continue to vigorously litigate the Complaint in pursuit of the full abatement of the Assessments. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid further unfavorable interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. During fiscal 2019, the Company paid $0.6 million to the State of Oregon in connection with the Oregon Tax Litigation, of which $0.3 million was charged to the consolidated statement of operations as the amount of loss deemed probable and reasonably estimable, and $0.3 million was recorded as a receivable in other current assets on the consolidated balance sheet for interest and penalties that the Company expects will be refunded. Reid Litigation On May 23, 2019, plaintiff Valentin Reid filed a putative class action complaint (the “Reid Litigation”) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the ADA, New York State Human Rights Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, unspecified monetary damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and other appropriate relief. Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Reid Litigation is not estimable. Secure Cam Litigation On May 2, 2018, plaintiff Secure Cam, LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Butterfleye, Inc., alleging infringement of four United States patents (No. 8,531,555, No. 8,350,928, No. 8,836,819 and No. 9,363,408) (the “Secure Cam Litigation”). On September 28, 2018, the Company and Secure Cam, LLC settled the complaint for an immaterial amount and the complaint was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. Securities Litigation On January 14, 2016, Michael Barnett filed a purported stockholder class action in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California (Case No. CIV536959) against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of the Company’s IPO on July 17, 2015. Since that time two additional purported class actions making substantially the same allegations against the same defendants were filed, and on May 18, 2016, all three complaints were combined into a “consolidated complaint” filed in the same court (the “Securities Litigation”). The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of common stock in the Company’s IPO in reliance upon the Registration Statement and Prospectus the Company filed with the SEC. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company and the other defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) by issuing the Registration Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On November 29, 2017, the Superior Court dismissed the claims that were based on Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with prejudice, and the case proceeded to the discovery phase. On July 30, 2018, the Court issued an order certifying the class and, after a period of discovery practice, on May 30, 2019, the parties filed with the Court a Stipulation of Settlement. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurers will deposit $8.65 million into a settlement fund for payment to class members, plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs of administering the settlement. The proposed settlement must be approved by the Court before becoming effective. The Stipulation of Settlement contains no admissions of wrongdoing, and the Company and the other defendants have maintained and continue to deny liability and wrongdoing of any kind with respect to the class action claims. However, given the potential cost and burden of continued litigation, the Company believes the proposed settlement is in the best interests of its stockholders and the Company. If the Court grants final approval of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Court will dismiss the class action lawsuit with prejudice and the plaintiff will be deemed to have released all claims against the Company and all other defendants relating to the allegations in the class action. The Company can provide no assurance that the Court will approve the Stipulation of Settlement. Based on the Company’s current knowledge, it believes that if the settlement is approved, the amount of any further probable loss to be paid by the Company will be immaterial. Indemnification The Company enters into standard indemnification arrangements in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these arrangements, the Company indemnifies, holds harmless and agrees to reimburse the indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party, in connection with any trade secret, copyright, patent or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third party with respect to the Company’s technology. The term of these indemnification agreements is generally perpetual. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these agreements is not determinable because it involves claims that may be made against the Company in the future but have not yet been made. The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and officers that may require the Company to indemnify its directors and officers against liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers, other than liabilities arising from willful misconduct of the individual. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, the Company has director and officer insurance coverage that reduces the Company’s exposure and enables the Company to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. To date the Company has not incurred costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. No liability associated with such indemnifications has been recorded to date.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Apr. 30, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 11: Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments. As of April 30, 2019 and January 31, 2019, non-cancelable purchase commitments with the Company’s contract manufacturers were $3.9 million and $4.2 million, respectively. In addition, as of April 30, 2019 and January 31, 2019, non-cancelable purchase commitments with GTC, a related party of the Company, were approximately $0.7 million and zero, respectively. (See Note 4: Balance Sheet Components above for additional information.)

Legal Proceedings

In addition to the litigation matters described below, from time to time, the Company may be involved in a variety of other 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. Defending such proceedings is costly and can impose a significant burden on management and employees, the Company may receive unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation, and there can be no assurances that favorable final outcomes will be obtained.

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. Legal fees are expensed in the period in which they are incurred.

As of April 30, 2019, the Company did not have any material loss contingencies recorded in its consolidated financial statements.

Berks County Litigation

On January 21, 2016, the County of Berks, Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas naming the Company and 113 other telephone service providers as defendants (the “Berks County Litigation”), alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with alleged violations of the Pennsylvania 911 Emergency Communication Services Act (“PA 911 Act”) for failure to collect from subscribers and remit certain fees pursuant to the PA 911 Act. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the Company must comply with the PA 911 Act, compensatory and punitive damages and such other relief as the court may deem proper. The Company believes that the plaintiff’s claims are without merit since the Company has no employees, property or other indicia of a “substantial nexus” with the State of Pennsylvania. The Company intends to continue vigorously defending against this lawsuit. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources.

Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Berks County Litigation is not estimable.

Deep Green Wireless Litigation

On June 8, 2016, plaintiff Deep Green Wireless LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Ooma, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE42,714 (the “Deep Green Wireless Patent”, and such litigation, the “Deep Green Wireless Litigation”). The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and other appropriate relief. In February 2017, the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, which proceeding has been stayed pending the outcome of an inter partes review of the Deep Green Wireless Patent by the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The PTAB has granted the Company’s motion for inter partes review of the Deep Green Wireless Patent, and on August 13, 2018 the PTAB heard oral arguments from each party. On December 17, 2018, the PTAB issued its final decision regarding the claims at issue in the Deep Green Wireless Litigation, in which it determined that all challenged claims of the ‘714 patent are obvious and unpatentable. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 19, 2019. Briefing is scheduled to commence on June 6, 2019. If the Federal Circuit rules in favor of the Company on appeal, we expect the Deep Green Wireless Litigation should be dismissed.

Based on the Company’s current knowledge, and as confirmed by the PTAB’s final decision, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Deep Green Wireless Litigation is not estimable.

Dolemba Litigation

On September 4, 2018, plaintiff Scott Dolemba filed a putative class action complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. On May 21, 2019, the Company and plaintiff settled the complaint for an immaterial amount and the complaint was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

Oregon Tax Litigation

On August 30, 2016, the Oregon Department of Revenue (the “DOR”) issued tax assessments against the Company for the Oregon Emergency Communications Tax (the “Tax”), which the DOR alleges Ooma should have collected from its subscribers in Oregon and remitted to the DOR during the period starting on January 1, 2013 and ending on March 31, 2016 (collectively, the “Assessments”). On November 28, 2016, the Company filed a complaint in the Oregon Tax Court, asserting that the Assessments against the Company is in violation of applicable Oregon law and are barred by the United States Constitution, and asking the Oregon Tax Court to abate the Assessments in full (the “Complaint”, and such dispute, the “Oregon Tax Litigation”). On February 10, 2017, the DOR filed an answer to the Complaint, and during April 2017, the Company voluntarily participated in an informal discovery process by providing certain information and documents to the DOR. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on September 29, 2017, and on December 13, 2017 the Court heard oral arguments from the parties regarding such motion.

On March 27, 2018, the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court issued its decision denying the Company’s motion, and granting the DOR’s motion for summary judgment. Notwithstanding such decision, the Company believes that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution bars the application of the Tax and the Assessments to the Company, since the Company has no employees, property or other indicia of a “substantial nexus” with the State of Oregon. On June 12, 2018, the Company filed an appeal of the Magistrate Divisions decision and on October 12, 2018, the Company filed its motion for summary judgment with the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court. The DOR filed its motion for summary judgment on November 16, 2018. On January 17, 2019, the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court heard oral arguments on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, and no decision has been issued. The Company will continue to vigorously litigate the Complaint in pursuit of the full abatement of the Assessments. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid further unfavorable interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources.

During fiscal 2019, the Company paid $0.6 million to the State of Oregon in connection with the Oregon Tax Litigation, of which $0.3 million was charged to the consolidated statement of operations as the amount of loss deemed probable and reasonably estimable, and $0.3 million was recorded as a receivable in other current assets on the consolidated balance sheet for interest and penalties that the Company expects will be refunded.

Reid Litigation

On May 23, 2019, plaintiff Valentin Reid filed a putative class action complaint (the “Reid Litigation”) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the ADA, New York State Human Rights Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, unspecified monetary damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and other appropriate relief.

Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Reid Litigation is not estimable.

Secure Cam Litigation

On May 2, 2018, plaintiff Secure Cam, LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Butterfleye, Inc., alleging infringement of four United States patents (No. 8,531,555, No. 8,350,928, No. 8,836,819 and No. 9,363,408) (the “Secure Cam Litigation”). On September 28, 2018, the Company and Secure Cam, LLC settled the complaint for an immaterial amount and the complaint was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

Securities Litigation

On January 14, 2016, Michael Barnett filed a purported stockholder class action in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California (Case No. CIV536959) against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of the Company’s IPO on July 17, 2015. Since that time two additional purported class actions making substantially the same allegations against the same defendants were filed, and on May 18, 2016, all three complaints were combined into a “consolidated complaint” filed in the same court (the “Securities Litigation”). The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of common stock in the Company’s IPO in reliance upon the Registration Statement and Prospectus the Company filed with the SEC. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company and the other defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) by issuing the Registration Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court may deem proper.

On November 29, 2017, the Superior Court dismissed the claims that were based on Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with prejudice, and the case proceeded to the discovery phase. On July 30, 2018, the Court issued an order certifying the class and, after a period of discovery practice, on May 30, 2019, the parties filed with the Court a Stipulation of Settlement. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurers will deposit $8.65 million into a settlement fund for payment to class members, plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs of administering the settlement. The proposed settlement must be approved by the Court before becoming effective. The Stipulation of Settlement contains no admissions of wrongdoing, and the Company and the other defendants have maintained and continue to deny liability and wrongdoing of any kind with respect to the class action claims. However, given the potential cost and burden of continued litigation, the Company believes the proposed settlement is in the best interests of its stockholders and the Company. If the Court grants final approval of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Court will dismiss the class action lawsuit with prejudice and the plaintiff will be deemed to have released all claims against the Company and all other defendants relating to the allegations in the class action. The Company can provide no assurance that the Court will approve the Stipulation of Settlement.

Based on the Company’s current knowledge, it believes that if the settlement is approved, the amount of any further probable loss to be paid by the Company will be immaterial.

Indemnification

The Company enters into standard indemnification arrangements in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these arrangements, the Company indemnifies, holds harmless and agrees to reimburse the indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party, in connection with any trade secret, copyright, patent or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third party with respect to the Company’s technology. The term of these indemnification agreements is generally perpetual. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these agreements is not determinable because it involves claims that may be made against the Company in the future but have not yet been made.

The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and officers that may require the Company to indemnify its directors and officers against liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers, other than liabilities arising from willful misconduct of the individual. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, the Company has director and officer insurance coverage that reduces the Company’s exposure and enables the Company to recover a portion of any future amounts paid.

To date the Company has not incurred costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. No liability associated with such indemnifications has been recorded to date.