XML 35 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies We may from time to time be subject to certain legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business, including claims of alleged infringement of trademarks, patents, copyrights, and other intellectual property rights; employment claims; and general contract or other claims. We may also, from time to time, be subject to various legal or government claims, demands, disputes, investigations, or requests for information. Such matters may include, but not be limited to, claims, disputes, or investigations related to warranty, refund, breach of contract, employment, intellectual property, government regulation, or compliance or other matters. On January 12, 2022, Rak Joon Choi, derivatively on behalf of Chegg, filed a shareholder derivative complaint against Chegg and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, among others. The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. On December 22, 2021, Steven Leventhal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities fraud class action on behalf of all purchasers of Chegg common stock between May 5, 2020 and November 1, 2021, inclusive, against Chegg and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:21-cv-09953), alleging that Chegg and several of its officers made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff in this matter seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses, including counsel and expert fees. The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. On September 13, 2021, Pearson Education, Inc. (Pearson) filed a complaint captioned Pearson Education, Inc. v. Chegg, Inc. (Pearson Complaint) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company (Case 2:21-cv-16866), alleging infringement of Pearson’s registered copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright in violation of the United States Copyright Act. Pearson is seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. The Company filed its answer to the Pearson Complaint on November 19, 2021. The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. On December 1, 2020, we received notice that a class action lawsuit was filed against Chegg in New York alleging violations of the American with Disabilities Act. The claim asserted that one of Chegg’s websites is not compatible with software used by vision-impaired individuals. During the year ended December 31, 2021, we settled this matter for an immaterial amount, and it is now concluded. On August 18, 2020, we received notice that a class action lawsuit was filed against Chegg in California alleging violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The claim asserted that one of Chegg’s websites is not compatible with software used by vision-impaired individuals. During the year ended December 31, 2021, we settled this matter for an immaterial amount, and it is now concluded. On July 21, 2020, VitalSource Technologies LLC (VST), which is wholly owned by Ingram Industries Inc., filed a complaint against Chegg alleging that Chegg breached its contract with VST involving the development of an eTextbook reader and eTextbook reader platform. The suit sought uncertain damages, but the complaint alleged that they exceeded $75 thousand. During the year ended December 31, 2021, we settled this matter for an immaterial amount, and it is now concluded. On June 18, 2020, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to determine whether we may have violated Section 5 of the FTC Act or the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), as they relate to deceptive or unfair acts or practices related to consumer privacy and/or data security. We have provided the FTC with the requested responses to interrogatories and follow-up questions and have produced documents pertaining to data breach incidents and our data security and privacy practices generally. On May 12, 2020, we received notice that 15,107 arbitration demands were filed against us on April 30, 2020 by individuals all represented by the same legal counsel. Each individual claimant claimed to have suffered more than $25 thousand in damages as a result of the unauthorized access of certain items of their user data in April 2018 (the 2018 Data Incident). On July 1, 2020, an additional 1,007 arbitration demands were filed by the same counsel, making identical allegations. On August 12, 2020, an additional 577 arbitration demands were filed by the same counsel, making identical allegations. Related cases have been filed by the same counsel in Maryland and California. We dispute that these claimants have a valid basis for seeking arbitration, assert that they have acted in bad faith and are working with the Maryland and California courts and plaintiffs’ counsel on resolution of these claims. On August 22, 2021, Chegg and the claimants' legal counsel, on behalf of its clients, entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which each eligible claimant that signs a release agreement agrees, among other things, to dismiss with prejudice all claims against Chegg that such claimant currently maintains in exchange for such claimant's pro rata portion of the settlement amount. Claimants had until January 26, 2022 to sign their release agreements. In March 2021, we recorded a loss contingency accrual and a corresponding insurance loss recovery, the net impact of which did not materially impact our consolidated statements of operations. On November 5, 2018, NetSoc, LLC (NetSoc) filed a complaint against us captioned NetSoc, LLC v. Chegg, Inc., (Civil Action No. 1:18-CV-10262-RAC) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) for patent infringement alleging that the Chegg Tutors service infringes U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107 (the NetSoc Patent) and seeking unspecified compensatory damages. A responsive pleading was filed on February 19, 2019. On January 13, 2020, the SDNY issued an order dismissing the case as to Chegg. On January 30, 2020, NetSoc appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit). On September 24, 2021, the Federal Circuit dismissed NetSoc's appeal of the SDNY dismissal. On December 2, 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office determined that the NetSoc Patent is invalid based on two Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings instituted in part by Chegg, and on January 4, 2021, NetSoc filed a Notice of Appeals at the Federal Circuit appealing the IPR decisions. On October 18, 2021, Chegg filed a motion to dismiss NetSoc's appeal of the IPR decisions. On December 7, 2021, the Federal Circuit granted Chegg’s motion to terminate the IPR appeal. This matter is now concluded. Aside from the loss contingency accrual for the 2018 Data Incident matter, we have not recorded any additional amounts related to the above matters as we do not believe that a loss is probable in these remaining matters. We are not aware of any other pending legal matters or claims, individually or in the aggregate, that are expected to have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, our analysis of whether a claim will proceed to litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, nor can the results of litigation be predicted with certainty. Nevertheless, defending any of these actions, regardless of the outcome, may be costly, time consuming, distract management personnel and have a negative effect on our business. An adverse outcome in any of these actions, including a judgment or settlement, may cause a material adverse effect on our future business, operating results and/or financial condition.

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