Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters The Company is subject to certain legal proceedings described below, and from time to time may be involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations, and proceedings relating to contractual disputes, intellectual property rights, employment matters, regulatory compliance matters, and other litigation matters relating to various claims that arise in the normal course of business. The Company determines whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be accrued by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company assesses its potential liability by analyzing specific litigation and regulatory matters using reasonably available information. The Company develops its views on estimated losses in consultation with inside and outside counsel, which involves a subjective analysis of potential results and outcomes, assuming various combinations of appropriate litigation and settlement strategies. Actual claims could settle or be adjudicated against the Company in the future for materially different amounts than the Company has accrued due to the inherently unpredictable nature of litigation. Legal fees are expensed in the period in which they are incurred. TCPA Matter On November 17, 2017, Joann Hurley (“Hurley”), filed a second amended complaint in an ongoing putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, adding the Company as a named defendant and alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and regulations promulgated thereunder by allegedly using an automated telephone dialing system to deliver prerecorded political messages to Hurley, an incumbent running for reelection, and others. Hurley alternatively alleged that the Company was vicariously liable for the actions of the other co-defendants. Hurley seeks statutory, compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees in connection with her claims. The Company was served with the second amended complaint on January 4, 2018. On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and failure to sufficiently state a claim on which relief may be granted. Hurley filed her opposition brief on April 6, 2018, and the Company filed its reply brief on April 13, 2018. On October 4, 2018, the district court issued its memorandum and opinion order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed Hurley’s vicarious liability claim but allowed Hurley’s TCPA claim to proceed. The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the second amended complaint on October 18, 2018. Hurley filed a motion to certify a class on July 9, 2019. The Company and another defendant filed oppositions to the motion, which were fully briefed and are pending decision by the court. Discovery closed on October 25, 2019. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on November 14, 2019. Hurley opposed the motion, which also has been fully briefed and is pending decision by the court. The parties mediated the case before a private mediator on January 23, 2020, at which time a tentative settlement was achieved. A fairness hearing on the proposed settlement was held on January 25, 2021, at which time the Court tentatively gave final approval of the settlement. The Court thereafter entered its final order and judgment approving the settlement on February 9, 2021. The settlement became effective as of March 12, 2021, and is currently being administered. The condensed consolidated financial statements include an immaterial accrual for the amount settled. Patent Infringement Matter On April 25, 2017, Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (together, “Uniloc”) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas two actions against the Company alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,804,948; 7,853,000; and 8,571,194 by RingCentral’s Glip unified communications application. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Company has infringed the patents, damages according to proof, injunctive relief, as well as their costs, attorney’s fees, expenses and interest. On October 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or transfer requesting that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In response to the motion, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on October 24, 2017. The Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss or transfer on November 15, 2017. Although briefing on that motion has been completed, the motion has not yet been decided. On February 5, 2018, Uniloc moved to stay the litigation pending the resolution of certain third-party inter partes review proceedings (“IPRs”) before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On February 9, 2018, the court stayed the litigation pending resolution of the IPRs without prejudice to or waiver of the Company’s motion to dismiss or transfer. This litigation is still in its earliest stages. Based on the information known by the Company as of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. CIPA Matter On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff Meena Reuben (“Reuben”) filed a complaint against the Company for a putative class action lawsuit in California Superior Court for San Mateo County. The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a class of individuals for whom, while they were in California, the Company allegedly intercepted and recorded communications between individuals and the Company’s customers without the individual’s consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) Sections 631 and 632.7. Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged violation of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs, and other unspecified amount of damages. On July 7, 2020, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to extend time for the Company to respond to the Reuben’s complaint. The Company has not responded to the complaint. This litigation is still in its earliest stages. Based on the information known by the Company as of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Zoom Matter On March 11, 2021, Zoom Video Communications, Inc. filed a lawsuit against RingCentral in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Zoom’s lawsuit alleges that the Company breached the parties’ Strategic Alliance Agreement (“SAA”) and violated Zoom’s trademark rights by selling RingCentral's feature bundles including RingCentral Meetings, the Company’s white-label version of Zoom’s video conferencing services, after Zoom “terminated” the SAA. On March 15, 2021, the Company filed counterclaims against Zoom seeking, among other things, declaratory judgment that the SAA has not been terminated, that Zoom’s trademark claims are barred, and that Zoom is engaging in unfair competition, including by making false statements to customers. On March 17, 2021, the Court granted the Company’s motion and issued a temporary restraining order against Zoom. On March 28, 2021, the Court denied RingCentral’s request for a preliminary injunction against Zoom and dissolved the restraining order which enjoined Zoom from blocking new RingCentral Meetings customer activations for the duration of the parties’ litigation. The Court’s order provides in part that “Zoom is to continue to provide the Service, pursuant to the SAA, to all RingCentral customers who were under contract prior to January 31, 2021. Zoom is not required to provide the Service to any new customer RingCentral contracted with after January 31, 2021.” Based on the information known by the Company as of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements, currently it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit and pursue its claims. Other Matter On June 14, 2019, the Company filed suit in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, against Bright Pattern, Inc. and two of its officers, alleging that the defendants negotiated a potential acquisition of Bright Pattern by RingCentral fraudulently and in bad faith. The Company seeks its costs incurred in negotiating under the Letter of Intent ("LOI") that the parties entered into and damages for lost opportunity as a result of forgoing another acquisition opportunity, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 26, 2019, Bright Pattern filed a cross-complaint against the Company and two of its executive officers alleging breach of the LOI as well as tort claims arising from the Company's allegedly inducing Bright Pattern to enter into the LOI and subsequent extensions while allegedly misstating the timeframe for the proposed transaction. As damages, Bright Pattern seeks audit fees it allegedly incurred, a $5 million break-up fee, its alleged “cash burn” during the negotiations, and unspecified lost opportunity damages. The Company filed a demurrer to Bright Pattern’s amended cross-complaint, as well as a related motion to strike. On May 7, 2020, the court denied both the motion to strike and demurrer. The Court has set the matter for trial on March 14, 2022. This litigation is still in early stages. Based on the information known by the Company as of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of any loss or range of loss that may occur. The Company intends to vigorously prosecute and defend this lawsuit. |