Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Obligations The Company has unconditional purchase commitments, primarily related to distribution fees, software license fees and marketing services, of $5.6 million as of June 30, 2022. Some of our agreements with retailers include certain guaranteed distribution fees which, in some cases, may apply to multiple annual periods. If the adoption and usage of our platforms do not meet projections or minimums, these guaranteed distribution fees may not be recoverable and any shortfall may be payable by us at the end of the applicable period. We considered various factors in our assessment including our historical experience with the transaction volumes through the retailer and comparative retailers, ongoing communications with the retailer to increase its marketing efforts to promote the digital platform, as well as the projected revenues, and associated revenue share payments. For example, in 2020, the Company's efforts to implement, with Albertsons, one of the Company’s solutions resulted in multiple disputes being raised by each of the parties against the other, one of which disputes resulted in the Company not being able to meet the contractual minimum at the end of the applicable period under the agreement. In order to resolve certain of the disputes regarding the parties' respective obligations, the Company recognized a loss of $8.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2020. This loss was included in cost of revenues on our consolidated statements of operations. During the second quarter of 2021, the Company notified Albertsons that due to Albertsons' failure to meet certain obligations under the agreement, the Company is not obligated to meet the contractual minimums for the period that ended in October 2021. In connection with renewal discussions between the parties, the Company received a letter in October 2021 from Albertsons notifying us of their intent to early terminate our agreement related to the delivery of promotions and media campaigns, effective December 31, 2021. The Company informed Albertsons that we disputed their right to terminate the agreement prior to March 31, 2022. On November 16, 2021, the Company notified Albertsons it was terminating the Agreement effective November 18, 2021, due to Albertsons’ failure to cure its material breach of the Agreement. Consistent with its offer, the Company continued to provide certain services past the termination date for the benefit of its CPG customers; and ceased providing the last of such services on February 26, 2022. The parties are currently in litigation, presently having entered into a stipulation, which is currently pending court approval, to stay the case temporarily to facilitate mediation. If the contractual minimum applicable to the period that ended in October 2021 is enforceable, the Company may recognize a loss that, depending on a variety of factors, is estimated to be as high as $8.5 million. Indemnification In the normal course of business, to facilitate transactions related to the Company’s operations, the Company indemnifies certain parties, including CPGs, advertising agencies, retailers and other third parties. The Company has agreed to hold certain parties harmless against losses arising from claims of intellectual property infringement or other liabilities relating to or arising from our products or services, or other contractual infringement. The term of these indemnity provisions generally survive termination or expiration of the applicable agreement. To date, the Company has not recorded any liabilities related to these agreements. We also have entered into indemnification agreements with our officers and directors, and our Amended and Restated Bylaws also contain provisions relating to circumstances under which the Company may indemnify certain other parties. The Company’s founder and former CEO, Steven Boal, is subject to a claim from a third party, alleging that he owes certain amounts to the third party in connection with fundraising activities for Quotient that occurred between 1998 and 2006. (Mr. Boal left the Company for unrelated reasons in June 2022.) The Company agreed to advance certain defense costs, subject to an undertaking to repay such amounts if, and to the extent that, it is ultimately determined that he is not entitled to indemnification. The matter is ongoing. If this matter is resolved in favor of the third party and the Company is required to indemnify Mr. Boal for a loss, the Company may be required to make an indemnity payment. While the Company maintains directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, such insurance may not be applicable or adequate or cover all liabilities that may be incurred. Litigation In the ordinary course of business, the Company may be involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings consisting of intellectual property, commercial, employment, and other matters. The Company records a provision for these claims when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss, or a range of the potential loss, can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed regularly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information or events pertaining to a particular case. In the event that one or more of these matters were to result in a claim against the Company, an adverse outcome, including a judgment or settlement, may cause a material adverse effect on the Company’s future business, operating results, or financial condition. The Company reached a settlement of an existing claim and therefore recorded an accrual as of June 30, 2022. The Company believes that material liabilities associated with other existing claims are remote, and therefore, the Company has not recorded any additional accrual for the other existing claims as of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021. The Company expenses legal fees in the period in which they are incurred. Legal Proceedings The Company does not list all routine litigation matters with which it is a party. The Company discusses below certain pending matters. In determining whether to discuss a pending matter, the Company considers both quantitative and qualitative factors to assess materiality, such as, among others, the amount of damages alleged and the nature of other relief sought, if specified; its view of the merits of the claims and of the strength of its defenses; and whether the action purports to be, or is, a class action the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is pending. Catalina Marketing Corp. v. Quotient Technology Inc. On February 24, 2021, Catalina Marketing Corporation filed a complaint in the Florida Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial District against the Company asserting claims for unlawful and unfair trade practices; tortious interference with business relationship; and tortious interference with prospective business relationship. The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in predatory pricing practices and misleading communications with potential customers in connection with its in-lane coupon solution. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, the Company believes that Catalina’s claims lack merit. Result Marketing Group, Ltd. v. Southeastern Grocers et al. On June 17, 2021, Result Marketing Group, Ltd. (“RMG”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, against Southeastern Grocers, LLC, Bio-Lo, LLC, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (collectively, "SEG") and the Company. The complaint alleges SEG breached its non-disclosure agreement with RMG by providing the Company with RMG's trade secrets, including the business concept of and "playbook" for a retail media hub. The complaint alleges the Company and SEG misappropriated such trade secrets to develop the SEG Media Hub, and that the Company further misappropriated such trade secrets to develop its "retail performance media platform", which it sells to end users. The complaint further alleges that the Company interfered with RMG's contract and prospective business relationship with SEG. RMG contends that SEG defrauded it of no less than $59 million, and that the Company and SEG are jointly and severally liable for treble damages of no less than $177 million. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, a constructive trust, and attorney's fees. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, the Company believes that RMG’s claims lack merit. Fortis Advisors LLC v. Quotient Technology, Inc. On August 20, 2021, Fortis Advisors LLC, as the SavingStar stockholder representative, ("Fortis") filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and in the alternative, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint alleges that the Company ceased to make generally available the SavingStar customer relationship management (CRM) business, which would trigger an earnout payment of $8.5 million under the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 23, 2018, between Quotient Technology Inc. and SavingStar, Inc. While the Company continues to believe the allegations underlying Fortis's complaint lack merit, in June 2022 the parties, without admitting to any liability, reached a settlement for an amount that did not have a material impact on the Company’s future business, operating results, or financial condition. Albertsons Companies, Inc. v. Quotient Technology, Inc. On November 16, 2021, the Company informed Albertsons Companies, Inc. (“Albertsons”) that, in light of Albertsons' failure to cure its material breach of the Services and Data Agreement ("the Agreement"), it was terminating the Agreement effective November 19, 2021. The Company offered to continue to provide certain services beyond the termination date for the benefit of the CPGs. On November 19, 2021, Albertsons filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara alleging claims of breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to achieve alleged minimum revenue targets, failed to make certain revenue share payments in the amount of $5.0 million, failed to pay a guaranteed annual minimum payment of $10.0 million under Statement of Work (SOW) No. 5, and improperly terminated the Agreement. On November 22, 2021, consistent with the Company's offer in its November 16, 2021 termination letter, the parties entered into a stipulation, where the Company agreed to sell campaigns through December 15, 2021, and provide services and support for those campaigns through February 26, 2022 so long as Albertsons provided the necessary logistical steps to enable the Company to deliver the services and support. The Company also agreed to support the In-Lane Tool through December 10, 2021. On December 9, 2021, Albertsons filed for a temporary restraining order to prevent the Company from discontinuing its digital-coupon-service or its In-Lane Tool or otherwise refusing to support Albertsons advertising and coupon programs, and for an order to show cause re preliminary injunction. On December 13, 2021, the Court issued an order denying Albertsons’ request for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause re preliminary injunction because, on the basis of the evidence presented by Albertsons, it found that Albertsons was unlikely to prevail on its claims at trial. The parties have entered into a stipulation, which is currently pending court approval, to stay the case temporarily to facilitate mediation. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, the Company believes that Albertsons’ claims lack merit. |