XML 30 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.25.1
Commitments and Contingencies
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Leases
Lease cost associated with operating leases for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024 is included in the table below.
As of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the weighted-average remaining term of our operating leases was 4.4 years and 4.5 years, respectively, and the weighted-average discount rate used to estimate the net present value of the operating lease liabilities was 7.2%. Cash payments for amounts included in the measurement of operating lease liabilities were $2.0 million and $2.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. There were no right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for new operating lease liabilities for the three months ended March 31, 2025. Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for new operating lease liabilities were $0.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024.
Net lease cost recognized in our condensed consolidated statements of operations is summarized in the table below (in thousands):
Three Months Ended
March 31,
20252024
Operating lease cost$1,816 $2,085 
Variable lease cost430 374 
Short-term lease cost432 403 
Sublease income(225)(222)
Total$2,453 $2,640 
Maturities of our operating lease liabilities as of March 31, 2025 were as follows (in thousands):
Amounts
Remainder of 2025$6,158 
20267,666 
20275,209 
20282,807 
20292,420 
Thereafter4,031 
Total undiscounted lease payments28,291 
Less: imputed interest(4,314)
Total operating lease liabilities$23,977 
Operating lease liabilities, current portion$6,744 
Operating lease liabilities, noncurrent portion$17,233 
Legal Contingencies
From time to time, we may have certain contingent liabilities that arise in the ordinary course of our business activities. We accrue a liability for such matters when it is probable that future expenditures will be made and that such expenditures can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount.
AVS Case
In March 2020, our subsidiary Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, “PEII”) terminated its license agreement with a licensee, AVS Products, LLC (“AVS”), for AVS’s failure to make required payments to PEII under the agreement, following notice of breach and an opportunity to cure. On February 6, 2021, PEII received a letter from counsel to AVS alleging that the termination of the contract was improper, and that PEII failed to meet its contractual obligations, preventing AVS from fulfilling its obligations under the license agreement.
On February 25, 2021, PEII brought suit against AVS in Los Angeles Superior Court to prevent further unauthorized sales of Playboy-branded products and for disgorgement of unlawfully obtained funds. On March 1, 2021, PEII also brought a claim in arbitration against AVS for outstanding and unpaid license fees. PEII and AVS subsequently agreed that the claims PEII brought in arbitration would be alleged in the Los Angeles Superior Court case instead, and on April 23, 2021, the parties entered into and filed a stipulation to that effect with the court. On May 18, 2021, AVS filed a demurrer, asking for the court to remove an individual defendant and dismiss PEII’s request for a permanent injunction. On June 10, 2021, the court denied AVS’s demurrer. AVS filed an opposition to PEII’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin AVS from continuing to sell or market Playboy-branded products on July 2, 2021, which the court denied on July 28, 2021.
On August 10, 2021, AVS filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit and declaratory relief. As in its February 2021 letter, AVS alleges its license was wrongfully terminated and that PEII failed to approve AVS’ marketing efforts in a manner that was either timely or that was commensurate with industry practice. AVS is seeking to be excused from having to perform its obligations as a licensee, payment of the value for services rendered by AVS to PEII outside of the license, and damages to be proven at trial. The court heard PEII’s motion for summary judgment on June 6, 2023, and dismissed six out of 10 of AVS’ causes of action. AVS’ contract-related claims remain to be determined at trial, which is set for September 2025. In addition, PEII filed a new, related complaint against Sunrise Brands based on their participation in AVS’s misconduct, as well as their own direct misconduct. Sunrise Brands has submitted an answer to that complaint. The parties in the AVS and Sunrise Brand cases are currently engaged in discovery, and both cases been related together by the court and will be tried together, for both pretrial and trial purposes. We believe AVS’ remaining claims and allegations are without merit, and we will defend this matter vigorously.
New Handong Arbitration

On February 8, 2024, PEII and certain of its subsidiaries initiated arbitration in the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (the “Arbitration”) against PEII’s terminated China licensee, New Handong Investment (Guangdong) Co., Ltd. (“New Handong”). In October 2023, PEII’s subsidiary terminated its license agreement with New Handong due to ongoing, uncured material breaches by New Handong. PEII and certain of its subsidiaries are seeking damages, including the payment of outstanding guaranteed minimum royalties, the payment of all guaranteed minimum royalties for the remainder of the term of the agreement, and other contractual damages for a variety of breaches. Such breaches include unauthorized sales of products, underpayment of earned royalties, failure to use approved trademarks and affix official holograms to all products, and the use of unapproved sublicensees. PEII and certain of its subsidiaries are also seeking a declaration that the termination of the agreement was lawful and valid and the issuance of a legal order to require New Handong to refrain from any further manufacture, sale, distribution or other use of any Playboy intellectual property or products. While PEII believes it has strong claims against New Handong, and that the facts of the matter support those claims, even in the event PEII were to obtain all the relief it seeks from the Arbitration, PEII can provide no assurance or guarantee that it will be able to enforce the results of the Arbitration against New Handong or recover all monetary awards from New Handong.

Former Model Case

On July 5, 2024, a former Playboy model filed a complaint against the Company, certain of the Company’s affiliates and A&E Television Networks LLC (“A&E”, and collectively, with the Company and its affiliates, the “Defendants”) in California Superior Court for claims arising from A&E’s “Secrets of Playboy” show (the “A&E Show”) which showed certain Playboy videos that depicted the former model. The complaint alleged, among other things, invasion of privacy, appropriation, distribution of private explicit video, negligence and unfair competition by the Defendants to the detriment of the former model. The lawsuit sought at least $2.0 million in damages from the Defendants. As neither the Company nor its affiliates participated in any way in the creation, production, distribution or airing of the A&E Show, nor did the Company or its affiliates license or otherwise authorize use of the videos in the A&E Show, this case was dismissed as to the Company and its affiliates, with prejudice, on April 1, 2025.