Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 13 — Commitments and Contingencies Promotional Rights Certain of the Company's content acquisition agreements contain minimum guarantees and require that the Company makes upfront minimum guarantee payments. As of September 30, 2019, the Company has licenses, production and/or distribution agreements to pay future minimum guarantee commitments of $5.2 million, of which $1.4 million will be paid in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020 and the remainder will be paid thereafter. These agreements also provide for a revenue share that ranges between 35% and 50% of net revenues. In addition, there are other licenses, production and/or distribution agreements that provide for revenue share of 50% of net revenues; however, without a requirement to make future minimum guarantee commitment payments irrespective to the execution and results of the planned events. As of September 30, 2019, the Company had prepaid minimum guarantees of $0.2 million in content acquisition costs related to minimum guarantees. Contractual Obligations As of September 30, 2019, the Company is obligated under agreements with certain content providers, such as festivals, clubs, events, concerts, artists, promoters, venues, music labels and publishers, and other contractual obligations to make guaranteed payments as follows: $1.1 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020 and $1.0 million thereafter. On a quarterly basis, the Company records the greater of the cumulative actual content acquisition costs incurred or the cumulative minimum guarantee based on forecasted usage for the minimum guarantee period. The minimum guarantee period is the period of time that the minimum guarantee relates to, as specified in each agreement, which may be annual or a longer period. The cumulative minimum guarantee, based on forecasted usage, considers factors such as listening hours, revenue, subscribers and other terms of each agreement that impact the Company's expected attainment or recoupment of the minimum guarantees based on the relative attribution method. Several of the Company's content acquisition agreements also include provisions related to the royalty payments and structures of those agreements relative to other content licensing arrangements, which, if triggered, could cause the Company's payments under those agreements to escalate. In addition, record labels, publishers and performing rights organizations with whom the Company has entered into direct license agreements have the right to audit the Company's content acquisition payments, and any such audit could result in disputes over whether the Company has paid the proper content acquisition costs. However, as of September 30, 2019, the Company does not believe it is probable that these provisions of its agreements discussed above will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Legal Proceedings On February 8, 2018, Wynn Las Vegas, LLC ("Wynn") filed a claim in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada against LXL Tickets claiming total damages in excess of $0.6 million (the "Wynn Claim Amount") as a result of alleged breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment with respect to that certain Second Amendment and Extension of the Wantickets.com Presale Agreement entered into by and between Wantickets and Wynn on or about September 30, 2016 (the "Wantickets-Wynn Agreement"). In connection with this action, on June 21, 2017, Wynn filed suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada against RNG Tickets, LLC (d/b/a Wantickets) and Wantickets. That litigation is still pending and active. RNG Tickets has not filed a responsive pleading in the case and Wantickets RDM has defaulted. The Company believes that Wynn's position is that LXL Tickets acquired Wantickets, including Wantickets' obligations under the Wantickets-Wynn Agreement (and not just certain assets and liabilities of Wantickets), and as such LXL Tickets should be liable to Wynn for the Wynn Claim Amount pursuant to the Wantickets-Wynn Agreement. The Company further believes that this action against LXL Tickets is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against any obligations or liability to Wynn with respect to such claims. In October 2018, pursuant to the terms of the APA (as defined below), the Company submitted a formal demand to Wantickets, Mr. Schnaier and Danco to indemnify the Company, among other things, for its costs and expenses incurred in connection with this matter. In April 2019, the parties agreed to informally stay the proceeding for the time being and extend discovery deadlines. As of September 30, 2019, the potential range of loss related to this matter was not material. In March 2018, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP served the Company with a complaint filed on February 22, 2018 in the Supreme Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles against the Company. The complaint alleges, among other things, breach of contract and breach of promissory note. Plaintiff is seeking damages of $0.2 million, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other such relief as the court may award. On April 12, 2018, the Company filed an answer that generally denied all the claims in the complaint. On February 19, 2019, in connection with the settlement of the plaintiff's Delaware action (as discussed below), the parties settled this matter agreeing that the Company would repay this note and accrued interest in full by June 30, 2019. Such settlement was approved by the court on March 4, 2019, and the plaintiff dismissed this action against the Company without prejudice. No additional consideration was paid by the Company to the plaintiff related to this settlement. At September 30, 2019 the promissory note has not been paid and is currently past due. On October 11, 2018, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP ("Manatt") filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company alleging that we have improperly refused to remove the restrictive legend from the shares of the Company's common stock owned by the plaintiff (the "Manatt DE Action"). Plaintiff is seeking declaratory judgment that all of the statutory prerequisites for removal of the restrictive legend have been met and injunctive relief requiring us to remove such restrictive legend, plus damages and losses suffered by the plaintiff as a result of our alleged conduct, including interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other such relief as the court may award. On February 19, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and agreed to release each other from all claims and damages relating to this matter, pending the repayment by the Company of the promissory note discussed above by September 30, 2019 and the sale of such shares by Manatt in compliance with such order. The parties further agreed that within three days after the later of (i) Manatt's sale of all of their shares pursuant to the court's order in compliance therewith, and (ii) the note repayment by such due date, Manatt would dismiss this Delaware action and the California action with prejudice. Such settlement was approved by the court on March 4, 2019. Other than the repayment of the note and accrued interest in full, no additional consideration was paid by the Company to the plaintiff related to this settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, as a result of the note due to Manatt described above having not been paid as of September 30, 2019 and is currently being past due, in August, 2019, Manatt obtained a judgement in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company for the amount of $0.3 million, which represents principal and all accrued and unpaid interest on the note through July 5, 2019. The judgement amount will continue to accrue interest at the 6% applicable rate from July 6, 2019 through the date of the judgment's satisfaction in full. In September 2019, Manatt obtained a related sister-state judgement in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles against the Company for the same amount. On April 10, 2018, Joseph Schnaier, Danco Enterprises, LLC (an entity solely owned by Mr. Schnaier, "Danco"), Wantmcs Holdings, LLC (Mr. Schnaier is the managing member) and Wantickets (Mr. Schnaier is the 90% beneficial owner) filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against each of the Company, LXL Tickets, Robert S. Ellin, Alec Ellin, Blake Indursky and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. ("Computershare"). Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed all claims against Alec Ellin and Blake Indursky. The complaint alleged multiple causes of action arising out of Schnaier's investment (through Danco) of $1.25 million into the Company in 2016, the Company's purchase of certain operating assets of Wantickets pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 5, 2017, and Mr. Schnaier's employment with LXL Tickets, including claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, conversion, and defamation. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs have also sued Computershare for negligence and for injunctive relief relating to the refusal to transfer certain restricted shares of the Company's common stock owned by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, damages of approximately $26.7 million, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other such relief as the court may award. The Company has denied plaintiffs' claims. The Company believes that the complaint is an intentional act by the plaintiffs to publicly tarnish the Company's and its senior management's reputations through the public domain in an effort to obtain by threat of litigation certain results for Mr. Schnaier's self-serving and improper purposes. The Company is vigorously defending this lawsuit, and the Company believes that the allegations are without merit and that it has strong defenses. On June 26, 2018, the Company and LXL Tickets, filed counterclaims against the plaintiffs for breach of contract (including under the Asset Purchase Agreement), fraudulent inducement, and other causes of action, seeking injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees and expenses and such other relief as the court may award. The parties are currently engaged in pre-trial proceedings, including discovery with the trial not expected to commence, if any, until the first quarter of the Company's fiscal year ending March 31, 2021. In October 2018, pursuant to the terms of the APA, the Company submitted a formal demand to Wantickets, Mr. Schnaier and Danco to indemnify the Company, among other things, for its costs and expenses incurred in connection with this matter. Per the court order issued in May 2019, the parties agreed to allow Mr. Schnaier to sell his remaining shares of the Company's common stock on an ongoing basis. Sales of such shares were completed during the second quarter ended September 30, 2019. The Company has and intends to continue to vigorously defend all defendants against any liability to the plaintiffs with respect to such claims. As of September 30, 2019, the outcome of this lawsuit is inherently uncertain and the potential range of loss could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations. During the six months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, the Company recorded aggregate legal settlement expenses relating to potential claims arising in connection with litigation brought against the Company by certain third-parties of $0 and less than $0.1 million, respectively. During the six months ended September 30, 2018, the full amount was expensed and included in general and administrative expenses. While the resolution of the above matters cannot be predicted with certainty, other than as set forth above and in this Note 13 — Commitments and Contingencies of the 2019 Form 10-K, the Company does not believe, based on current knowledge, that except as set forth above, the outcome of the currently pending claims or legal proceedings in which the Company is currently involved will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial statements. From time to time, the Company may be involved in legal proceedings and other matters arising in connection with the conduct of its business activities. Many of these proceedings may be at preliminary stages and/or seek an indeterminate amount of damages. The Company regularly evaluates the status of its commitments and contingencies in which it is involved to (i) assess whether a material loss is probable or there is at least a reasonable possibility that a material loss or an additional material loss in excess of a recorded accrual may have been incurred and (ii) determine if financial accruals are required when appropriate. The Company records an expense accrual for any commitments and loss contingency when it determines that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If an expense accrual is not appropriate, the Company further evaluates each matter to assess whether an estimate of possible loss or range of loss can be made and whether or not any such matter requires additional disclosure. There can be no assurance that any proceeding against the Company will be resolved in amounts that will not differ from the amounts of estimated exposures. Legal fees and other costs of defending litigation are expensed as incurred. Non-Income Related Taxes In general, the Company has not historically collected state or local sales, use or other similar taxes in any jurisdictions in which the Company does not have a tax nexus, in reliance on court decisions or applicable exemptions that restrict or preclude the imposition of obligations to collect such taxes with respect to online sales of its music subscription services. In addition, the Company has not historically collected state or local sales, use or other similar taxes in certain jurisdictions in which it has a physical presence, in reliance on applicable exemptions. On June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., that state and local jurisdictions may, at least in certain circumstances, enforce a sales and use tax collection obligation on remote vendors that have no physical presence in such jurisdiction. A number of states have already begun, or have positioned themselves to begin, requiring sales and use tax collection by remote vendors and/or by online marketplaces. The details and effective dates of these collection requirements vary from state to state. The Company evaluated the new requirements, and based upon its assessment determined that its sales tax exposure was not material to the financial results as of September 30, 2019. The Company is in the process of determining how and when its collection practices will need to change in the relevant jurisdictions, including obtaining resale certificates from third party resellers of the Company's music services, as necessary.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 13 — Commitments and Contingencies

Promotional Rights

Certain of the Company's content acquisition agreements contain minimum guarantees and require that the Company makes upfront minimum guarantee payments. As of September 30, 2019, the Company has licenses, production and/or distribution agreements to pay future minimum guarantee commitments of $5.2 million, of which $1.4 million will be paid in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020 and the remainder will be paid thereafter. These agreements also provide for a revenue share that ranges between 35% and 50% of net revenues. In addition, there are other licenses, production and/or distribution agreements that provide for revenue share of 50% of net revenues; however, without a requirement to make future minimum guarantee commitment payments irrespective to the execution and results of the planned events. As of September 30, 2019, the Company had prepaid minimum guarantees of $0.2 million in content acquisition costs related to minimum guarantees.

Contractual Obligations

As of September 30, 2019, the Company is obligated under agreements with certain content providers, such as festivals, clubs, events, concerts, artists, promoters, venues, music labels and publishers, and other contractual obligations to make guaranteed payments as follows: $1.1 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020 and $1.0 million thereafter.

On a quarterly basis, the Company records the greater of the cumulative actual content acquisition costs incurred or the cumulative minimum guarantee based on forecasted usage for the minimum guarantee period. The minimum guarantee period is the period of time that the minimum guarantee relates to, as specified in each agreement, which may be annual or a longer period. The cumulative minimum guarantee, based on forecasted usage, considers factors such as listening hours, revenue, subscribers and other terms of each agreement that impact the Company's expected attainment or recoupment of the minimum guarantees based on the relative attribution method.

Several of the Company's content acquisition agreements also include provisions related to the royalty payments and structures of those agreements relative to other content licensing arrangements, which, if triggered, could cause the Company's payments under those agreements to escalate. In addition, record labels, publishers and performing rights organizations with whom the Company has entered into direct license agreements have the right to audit the Company's content acquisition payments, and any such audit could result in disputes over whether the Company has paid the proper content acquisition costs. However, as of September 30, 2019, the Company does not believe it is probable that these provisions of its agreements discussed above will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal Proceedings

On February 8, 2018, Wynn Las Vegas, LLC ("Wynn") filed a claim in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada against LXL Tickets claiming total damages in excess of $0.6 million (the "Wynn Claim Amount") as a result of alleged breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment with respect to that certain Second Amendment and Extension of the Wantickets.com Presale Agreement entered into by and between Wantickets and Wynn on or about September 30, 2016 (the "Wantickets-Wynn Agreement"). In connection with this action, on June 21, 2017, Wynn filed suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada against RNG Tickets, LLC (d/b/a Wantickets) and Wantickets. That litigation is still pending and active. RNG Tickets has not filed a responsive pleading in the case and Wantickets RDM has defaulted. The Company believes that Wynn's position is that LXL Tickets acquired Wantickets, including Wantickets' obligations under the Wantickets-Wynn Agreement (and not just certain assets and liabilities of Wantickets), and as such LXL Tickets should be liable to Wynn for the Wynn Claim Amount pursuant to the Wantickets-Wynn Agreement. The Company further believes that this action against LXL Tickets is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against any obligations or liability to Wynn with respect to such claims. In October 2018, pursuant to the terms of the APA (as defined below), the Company submitted a formal demand to Wantickets, Mr. Schnaier and Danco to indemnify the Company, among other things, for its costs and expenses incurred in connection with this matter. In April 2019, the parties agreed to informally stay the proceeding for the time being and extend discovery deadlines. As of September 30, 2019, the potential range of loss related to this matter was not material.

In March 2018, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP served the Company with a complaint filed on February 22, 2018 in the Supreme Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles against the Company. The complaint alleges, among other things, breach of contract and breach of promissory note. Plaintiff is seeking damages of $0.2 million, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other such relief as the court may award. On April 12, 2018, the Company filed an answer that generally denied all the claims in the complaint. On February 19, 2019, in connection with the settlement of the plaintiff's Delaware action (as discussed below), the parties settled this matter agreeing that the Company would repay this note and accrued interest in full by June 30, 2019. Such settlement was approved by the court on March 4, 2019, and the plaintiff dismissed this action against the Company without prejudice. No additional consideration was paid by the Company to the plaintiff related to this settlement. At September 30, 2019 the promissory note has not been paid and is currently past due.

On October 11, 2018, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP ("Manatt") filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company alleging that we have improperly refused to remove the restrictive legend from the shares of the Company's common stock owned by the plaintiff (the "Manatt DE Action"). Plaintiff is seeking declaratory judgment that all of the statutory prerequisites for removal of the restrictive legend have been met and injunctive relief requiring us to remove such restrictive legend, plus damages and losses suffered by the plaintiff as a result of our alleged conduct, including interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other such relief as the court may award. On February 19, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and agreed to release each other from all claims and damages relating to this matter, pending the repayment by the Company of the promissory note discussed above by September 30, 2019 and the sale of such shares by Manatt in compliance with such order. The parties further agreed that within three days after the later of (i) Manatt's sale of all of their shares pursuant to the court's order in compliance therewith, and (ii) the note repayment by such due date, Manatt would dismiss this Delaware action and the California action with prejudice. Such settlement was approved by the court on March 4, 2019. Other than the repayment of the note and accrued interest in full, no additional consideration was paid by the Company to the plaintiff related to this settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, as a result of the note due to Manatt described above having not been paid as of September 30, 2019 and is currently being past due, in August, 2019, Manatt obtained a judgement in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company for the amount of $0.3 million, which represents principal and all accrued and unpaid interest on the note through July 5, 2019. The judgement amount will continue to accrue interest at the 6% applicable rate from July 6, 2019 through the date of the judgment's satisfaction in full. In September 2019, Manatt obtained a related sister-state judgement in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles against the Company for the same amount.

On April 10, 2018, Joseph Schnaier, Danco Enterprises, LLC (an entity solely owned by Mr. Schnaier, "Danco"), Wantmcs Holdings, LLC (Mr. Schnaier is the managing member) and Wantickets (Mr. Schnaier is the 90% beneficial owner) filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against each of the Company, LXL Tickets, Robert S. Ellin, Alec Ellin, Blake Indursky and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. ("Computershare"). Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed all claims against Alec Ellin and Blake Indursky. The complaint alleged multiple causes of action arising out of Schnaier's investment (through Danco) of $1.25 million into the Company in 2016, the Company's purchase of certain operating assets of Wantickets pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 5, 2017, and Mr. Schnaier's employment with LXL Tickets, including claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, conversion, and defamation. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs have also sued Computershare for negligence and for injunctive relief relating to the refusal to transfer certain restricted shares of the Company's common stock owned by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, damages of approximately $26.7 million, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other such relief as the court may award. The Company has denied plaintiffs' claims. The Company believes that the complaint is an intentional act by the plaintiffs to publicly tarnish the Company's and its senior management's reputations through the public domain in an effort to obtain by threat of litigation certain results for Mr. Schnaier's self-serving and improper purposes. The Company is vigorously defending this lawsuit, and the Company believes that the allegations are without merit and that it has strong defenses. On June 26, 2018, the Company and LXL Tickets, filed counterclaims against the plaintiffs for breach of contract (including under the Asset Purchase Agreement), fraudulent inducement, and other causes of action, seeking injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees and expenses and such other relief as the court may award. The parties are currently engaged in pre-trial proceedings, including discovery with the trial not expected to commence, if any, until the first quarter of the Company's fiscal year ending March 31, 2021. In October 2018, pursuant to the terms of the APA, the Company submitted a formal demand to Wantickets, Mr. Schnaier and Danco to indemnify the Company, among other things, for its costs and expenses incurred in connection with this matter. Per the court order issued in May 2019, the parties agreed to allow Mr. Schnaier to sell his remaining shares of the Company's common stock on an ongoing basis. Sales of such shares were completed during the second quarter ended September 30, 2019. The Company has and intends to continue to vigorously defend all defendants against any liability to the plaintiffs with respect to such claims. As of September 30, 2019, the outcome of this lawsuit is inherently uncertain and the potential range of loss could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations.

During the six months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, the Company recorded aggregate legal settlement expenses relating to potential claims arising in connection with litigation brought against the Company by certain third-parties of $0 and less than $0.1 million, respectively. During the six months ended September 30, 2018, the full amount was expensed and included in general and administrative expenses.

While the resolution of the above matters cannot be predicted with certainty, other than as set forth above and in this Note 13 — Commitments and Contingencies of the 2019 Form 10-K, the Company does not believe, based on current knowledge, that except as set forth above, the outcome of the currently pending claims or legal proceedings in which the Company is currently involved will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial statements.

From time to time, the Company may be involved in legal proceedings and other matters arising in connection with the conduct of its business activities. Many of these proceedings may be at preliminary stages and/or seek an indeterminate amount of damages. The Company regularly evaluates the status of its commitments and contingencies in which it is involved to (i) assess whether a material loss is probable or there is at least a reasonable possibility that a material loss or an additional material loss in excess of a recorded accrual may have been incurred and (ii) determine if financial accruals are required when appropriate. The Company records an expense accrual for any commitments and loss contingency when it determines that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If an expense accrual is not appropriate, the Company further evaluates each matter to assess whether an estimate of possible loss or range of loss can be made and whether or not any such matter requires additional disclosure. There can be no assurance that any proceeding against the Company will be resolved in amounts that will not differ from the amounts of estimated exposures. Legal fees and other costs of defending litigation are expensed as incurred.

Non-Income Related Taxes

In general, the Company has not historically collected state or local sales, use or other similar taxes in any jurisdictions in which the Company does not have a tax nexus, in reliance on court decisions or applicable exemptions that restrict or preclude the imposition of obligations to collect such taxes with respect to online sales of its music subscription services. In addition, the Company has not historically collected state or local sales, use or other similar taxes in certain jurisdictions in which it has a physical presence, in reliance on applicable exemptions. On June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., that state and local jurisdictions may, at least in certain circumstances, enforce a sales and use tax collection obligation on remote vendors that have no physical presence in such jurisdiction. A number of states have already begun, or have positioned themselves to begin, requiring sales and use tax collection by remote vendors and/or by online marketplaces. The details and effective dates of these collection requirements vary from state to state. The Company evaluated the new requirements, and based upon its assessment determined that its sales tax exposure was not material to the financial results as of September 30, 2019. The Company is in the process of determining how and when its collection practices will need to change in the relevant jurisdictions, including obtaining resale certificates from third party resellers of the Company's music services, as necessary.