Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 15 — 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 December 31, 2021, the Company has licenses, production and/or distribution agreements to make guaranteed payments as follows: $0.3 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022 (remaining three months), $0.7 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, and $0.3 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024. 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 a revenue share of 50% on net revenues; however, without a requirement to make future minimum guaranteed payments irrespective to the execution and results of the planned events. Contractual Obligations As of December 31, 2021, the Company is obligated under agreements with Content Providers and other contractual obligations to make guaranteed payments as follows: $2.0 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022 (remaining three months), $6.7 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, and $5.7 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024. 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 December 31, 2021, 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 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, LiveXLive Tickets, Inc. (“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, Blake Indursky and Computershare. The complaint alleged multiple causes of action arising out of Schnaier’s investment (through Danco) into the Company in 2016, LXL Tickets’ 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. Based on the remaining claims, plaintiffs are seeking damages of approximately $10.0 million as shall be determined at trial, if any, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other such relief as the court may award. The Company has denied and continue to deny 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 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. 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. In November 2021, the court denied our summary judgment motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement claim, and dismissed plaintiff’s breach of the employment agreement claim with respect to the Company. As of December 31, 2021, all of plaintiffs’ claims other than fraudulent inducement were dismissed or addressed by the parties or the court. While a trial date has not yet been set, the Company expects the trial to commence sometime during the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023 (unless further extended as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic). The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend all remaining defendants against any liability to the plaintiffs with respect to the remaining claims, and the Company believes that the allegations are without merit and that it has strong defenses. As of December 31, 2021, while the Company has assessed that the likelihood of a loss, if any, is not probable, 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. In July 2021, Simply Greatness Productions, LLC (“SGP”) served the Company with a complaint filed on July 21, 2021 in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles against us and Paul Cazers. The complaint sought damages for an alleged breach of contract by us and an alleged breach of contract by Mr. Cazers related to the “Social Gloves: Battle of the Platforms” boxing event (the “Event”), alleged that we fraudulently induced SGP to commit to an oversize production budget based upon the Company knowing or negligent misrepresentation as to the anticipated pay-per-view sales for the Event, and sought an accounting on the performance of the Event. On July 22, 2022, the Company filed a complaint against SGP, Austin McBroom, Catherine Paiz McBroom and Allen McBroom in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles. The complaint arose from defamatory statements the defendants made following the Event claiming that the Company was dishonest about the number of Event ticket sales. In addition, the Company’s complaint alleged a breach of contract based on SGP’s willful failure to collaborate with the Company on marketing the Event resulting in poor ticket sales which, in turn, meant reduced fees to us. The complaint further alleged fraud and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The Company was asking the court to award no less than $100 million in damages. During the quarter ended December 31, 2021, the parties settled their claims against each other and claims by certain other parties for total payments by the Company of approximately $3.0 million of the Event proceeds received by the Company and made to applicable payees, and the parties to this action dismissed each of their claims described herein with prejudice. During each of the nine months ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, legal settlement expenses relating to potential claims arising in connection with litigation brought against the Company by certain third-parties were not material. During the nine months ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, the full amounts were expensed and included in general and administrative expenses in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations. From time to time, the Company is 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. In the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, such routine claims and lawsuits are not significant and we do not currently expect them to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 15 — 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 December 31, 2021, the Company has licenses, production and/or distribution agreements to make guaranteed payments as follows: $0.3 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022 (remaining three months), $0.7 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, and $0.3 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024. 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 a revenue share of 50% on net revenues; however, without a requirement to make future minimum guaranteed payments irrespective to the execution and results of the planned events.

Contractual Obligations

As of December 31, 2021, the Company is obligated under agreements with Content Providers and other contractual obligations to make guaranteed payments as follows: $2.0 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022 (remaining three months), $6.7 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, and $5.7 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

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 December 31, 2021, 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 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, LiveXLive Tickets, Inc. (“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, Blake Indursky and Computershare. The complaint alleged multiple causes of action arising out of Schnaier’s investment (through Danco) into the Company in 2016, LXL Tickets’ 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. Based on the remaining claims, plaintiffs are seeking damages of approximately $10.0 million as shall be determined at trial, if any, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other such relief as the court may award. The Company has denied and continue to deny 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 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. 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. In November 2021, the court denied our summary judgment motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement claim, and dismissed plaintiff’s breach of the employment agreement claim with respect to the Company. As of December 31, 2021, all of plaintiffs’ claims other than fraudulent inducement were dismissed or addressed by the parties or the court. While a trial date has not yet been set, the Company expects the trial to commence sometime during the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023 (unless further extended as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic). The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend all remaining defendants against any liability to the plaintiffs with respect to the remaining claims, and the Company believes that the allegations are without merit and that it has strong defenses. As of December 31, 2021, while the Company has assessed that the likelihood of a loss, if any, is not probable, 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.

In July 2021, Simply Greatness Productions, LLC (“SGP”) served the Company with a complaint filed on July 21, 2021 in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles against us and Paul Cazers. The complaint sought damages for an alleged breach of contract by us and an alleged breach of contract by Mr. Cazers related to the “Social Gloves: Battle of the Platforms” boxing event (the “Event”), alleged that we fraudulently induced SGP to commit to an oversize production budget based upon the Company knowing or negligent misrepresentation as to the anticipated pay-per-view sales for the Event, and sought an accounting on the performance of the Event.

On July 22, 2022, the Company filed a complaint against SGP, Austin McBroom, Catherine Paiz McBroom and Allen McBroom in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles. The complaint arose from defamatory statements the defendants made following the Event claiming that the Company was dishonest about the number of Event ticket sales. In addition, the Company’s complaint alleged a breach of contract based on SGP’s willful failure to collaborate with the Company on marketing the Event resulting in poor ticket sales which, in turn, meant reduced fees to us. The complaint further alleged fraud and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The Company was asking the court to award no less than $100 million in damages. During the quarter ended December 31, 2021, the parties settled their claims against each other and claims by certain other parties for total payments by the Company of approximately $3.0 million of the Event proceeds received by the Company and made to applicable payees, and the parties to this action dismissed each of their claims described herein with prejudice.

During each of the nine months ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, legal settlement expenses relating to potential claims arising in connection with litigation brought against the Company by certain third-parties were not material. During the nine months ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, the full amounts were expensed and included in general and administrative expenses in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations.

From time to time, the Company is 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. In the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, such routine claims and lawsuits are not significant and we do not currently expect them to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.