Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Leases The Company’s principal facility is located in San Francisco, California. The Company also leases office space in various locations with expiration dates between 2019 and 2024. The lease agreements often include leasehold improvement incentives, escalating lease payments, renewal provisions and other provisions which require the Company to pay taxes, insurance, maintenance costs or defined rent increases. All of Company’s leases are accounted for as operating leases. During the three months ended June 30, 2018, the Company notified the lessor of its intent to sublease a portion of one of its San Francisco offices. Under the terms of the lease, the lessor has the right to recapture this space. The lessor elected to exercise their recapture right effective August 1, 2018, which resulted in a reduction of approximately $81.4 million in the Company’s future lease obligations associated with this lease. Future minimum payments under the Company’s noncancelable lease agreements as of the date of this filing, reduced by the recaptured amount, was as follow (in thousands): Remaining 2018 $ 17,328 2019 33,571 2020 29,398 2021 27,136 2022 26,855 Thereafter 37,555 Total future minimum lease payments $ 171,843 Rent expense is recorded over the lease terms on a straight-line basis. Rent expense was $7.2 million and $10.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2018 and July 1, 2017 , respectively, and $ 16.8 million and $19.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2018 and July 1, 2017 , respectively. Purchase Commitments The aggregate amount of open purchase orders as of June 30, 2018 was approximately $387.6 million , of which $185.0 million related to the Company’s migration to a third-party hosting provider. The Company cannot determine the aggregate amount of such purchase orders that represent contractual obligations because purchase orders may represent authorizations to purchase rather than binding agreements. The Company’s purchase orders are based on its current needs and are fulfilled by its suppliers, contract manufacturers, and logistics providers within short periods of time. During the normal course of business, the Company and its contract manufacturers procure components based upon a forecasted production plan. If the Company cancels all or part of the orders, or materially reduces forecasted orders, it may be liable to its suppliers and contract manufacturers for the cost of the excess components purchased by its contract manufacturers. As of June 30, 2018 , $14.3 million was accrued for such liabilities to contract manufacturers. Legal Proceedings Jawbone. On May 27, 2015, Aliphcom, Inc. d/b/a Jawbone (“Jawbone”), filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California in the County of San Francisco against the Company and five of its employees who were formerly employed by Jawbone, alleging trade secret misappropriation and unfair and unlawful business practices against all defendants, and alleging breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the employee defendants. The complaint sought unspecified damages, including punitive damages and injunctive relief. On June 23, 2016, Jawbone filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a sixth employee defendant and related allegations. On June 10, 2015, Jawbone and BodyMedia, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Jawbone (“BodyMedia”), filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the Company infringes certain U.S. patents. The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees from the Company and to permanently enjoin the Company from making, manufacturing, using, selling, importing, or offering the Company’s products for sale. The lawsuit was stayed pending resolution the investigation in the U.S. International Trade Commission (the “ITC”). On July 7, 2015, Jawbone and BodyMedia filed a complaint with the ITC requesting an investigation into purported violations of the Tariff Act of 1930 by the Company and Flextronics International Ltd. and Flextronics Sales and Marketing (A-P) Ltd. The complaint makes the same patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims as the two earlier cases. The complaint seeks a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order halting the importation and sale of the infringing products. The ITC instituted the investigation on August 17, 2015. As a result of motions, all of the patent infringement claims were dismissed from the case. A trial on the trade secrets allegations took place from May 9 to 17, 2016. On August 23, 2016, the administrative law judge concluded that the Company did not misappropriate any Jawbone trade secrets. On October 20, 2016, the ITC terminated the investigation in the ITC. Jawbone appealed the dismissal of the patent infringement claims to the Federal Circuit. Oral argument was scheduled for November 9, 2017. On September 3, 2015, the Company filed a lawsuit against Jawbone in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Jawbone’s activity trackers infringe certain U.S. patents. This case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The trial was scheduled for July 13, 2020. On September 8, 2015, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement against Jawbone in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting that Jawbone’s activity trackers infringe certain U.S. patents. No trial date was set. On October 29, 2015, the Company filed a complaint for patent infringement against Jawbone in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting that Jawbone’s activity trackers infringe certain U.S. patents. That case was also transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. No trial date was set. On November 2, 2015, the Company filed a complaint with the ITC requesting an investigation into violations of the Tariff Act of 1930 by Jawbone and Body Media. The complaint asserted that Jawbone’s products infringe certain U.S. patents. The complaint sought a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order halting the importation and sale of infringing products. The ITC instituted the investigation on December 1, 2015. On December 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion to terminate the investigation, and the ITC terminated the investigation on February 1, 2017. On December 8, 2017, the parties announced the global settlement of all of the outstanding civil litigation on confidential terms. Each of the pending cases has been dismissed with prejudice. On August 12, 2016, the Company was notified by Jawbone that Jawbone had received a confidential subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California requesting certain of the Company’s confidential business information that appeared to be related to Jawbone’s allegations of trade secret misappropriation. On February 17, 2017, the Company received a subpoena for documents from the same office. On February 1, 2018, the Company received a second subpoena for documents. The Company is cooperating with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. On June 14, 2018, the six former Jawbone employees who were named as individual defendants in the state trade secret case were charged in a federal indictment with being in possession of certain Jawbone trade secrets. Sleep Tracking . On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available in certain trackers does not perform as advertised. Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted on November 20, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment. The Company’s motion for summary judgment was denied on December 8, 2017. During the three months ended June 30, 2018, the parties agreed to a settlement and on August 1, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action. Heart Rate Tracking. On January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the PurePulse® heart rate tracking technology does not consistently and accurately record users’ heart rates. Plaintiffs allege common law claims, as well as violations of various states’ false advertising, unfair competition, and consumer protection statutes, and seek class certification, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, and statutory penalties and damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint and, on May 19, 2016, filed an Amended Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint. On January 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration. On October 11, 2017, the Court granted the motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and that motion was denied on January 24, 2018. On February 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint (“SAC”) on behalf of plaintiff Rob Dunn, the only plaintiff not ordered to arbitration, as a purported class action. The SAC alleges the same common law claims, as well as violations of false advertising, unfair competition, and consumer protection statutes of California and Arizona, and also seeks class certification, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, and statutory penalties and damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On March 13, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and separately moved to strike the class allegations. The Court dismissed the claims for revocation of acceptance, violation of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment, and allowed the remaining claims pending amendment to the complaint with further details. Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on June 19, 2018. The Court granted the motion to strike and ordered the plaintiff to amend to make clear that he is seeking to represent a class of opt-outs only, but that plaintiff would be free to amend in the event Fitbit’s arbitration agreement was found to be unenforceable. In response to an April 3, 2018 arbitration demand from Kate McLellan, one of the original plaintiffs who was compelled to arbitration, the Company attempted to resolve the individual claim with Ms. McLellan. At the May 31, 2018 hearing, the Court expressed concern that the Company was “picking off” McLellan and thereby undermining the arbitration option and the Court’s prior order on arbitration, and ordered additional briefing The Company believes that the plaintiffs’ allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Securities Litigation. On January 11, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering (the “IPO”). On May 10, 2016, the Court appointed the Fitbit Investor Group (consisting of five individual investors) as lead plaintiff, and an Amended Complaint was filed on July 1, 2016. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on alleged materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s products between October 27, 2014 and November 23, 2015. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities (i) on the open market between June 18, 2015 and May 19, 2016; and/or (ii) pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. Plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On July 29, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion on October 26, 2016. On April 26, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which is still pending. On April 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Act was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors, the underwriters of the IPO, and a number of its investors. Plaintiffs allege that the IPO registration statement contained material misstatements about the Company’s products. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO and/or the November 2015 follow-on public offering (the “Secondary Offering”). Plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On May 17, 2016, a similar class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The cases have now been consolidated in the County of San Francisco. On April 7, 2017, the Court granted a motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim based on the Secondary Offering and stayed the cases. On January 8, 2018, the plaintiffs in the federal and class action cases filed their motion for preliminary approval of settlement of the putative federal and state class actions for $33.3 million , which the Company accrued for as of December 31, 2017. On January 19, 2018, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, and on April 20, 2018, the court approved the final settlement. The federal and class action cases have been dismissed with prejudice. On November 11, 2016, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California derivatively on behalf of the Company naming as defendants certain of its officers and directors and as a nominal plaintiff the Company. The plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, section 14(a), and misappropriation based on the same set of alleged facts in the federal and state securities class action litigation. On February 2, 2017, a second derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on the same allegations and also including claims for abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste. On June 27, 2017, another derivative law suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on the same allegations. The Courts have ordered a stay in all three cases. On June 1, 2017 and June 9, 2017, two additional derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty and insider trading against certain defendants who sold shares in the IPO and/or the Secondary Offering. On August 3, 2017, another derivative lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on the same allegations. There is temporary stay in all three cases. On March 15, 2018, the three derivative lawsuits were consolidated and a Second Amended Complaint was filed on the same allegations of the individual complaints, alleging the same claims, and seeking the same remedy. On April 26, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On October 31, 2017, a seventh derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, Country of San Francisco, on the same allegations. The Company has not yet been served in that case. On June 27, 2017, an individual investor lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Act and state law claims for statutory fraud and unfair business practice was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The allegations are based on the same set of alleged facts in the federal and state securities class action litigation. The individual case was resolved at a June 13, 2018 mediation. The Company believes that the plaintiffs’ allegations in the derivative actions and individual action are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of these litigation matters, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. Immersion. On July 10, 2017, Immersion Corporation filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that certain Fitbit devices infringe on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,059,105, 8,351,299, and 8,638,301. On October 5, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on grounds the patents are not eligible subject matter for patents. On March 5, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part, granting as to the ‘301 patent, but denying as to the other two patents. On July 10, 2017, Immersion Corporation also filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, alleging infringement of three Immersion Chinese patents. In addition to Fitbit, Inc., Immersion named Runtong, one of the Company’s former distributors in China. On August 23, 2017, two additional defendants were added, Fitbit Shanghai and Rkylin, a current distributor in China. In December 2017, the Company filed petitions to invalidate the patents. The invalidation proceedings as to all three patents were instituted. Hearings on two of the patents were held on April 16, 2018 and April 26, 2018; the third is scheduled for May 30, 2018. On July 8, 2018, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving the litigation globally. The cases have been dismissed with prejudice. Other. The Company is and, from time to time, may in the future become, involved in other legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. The Company currently believes that the outcome of any of these existing legal proceedings, including the aforementioned cases, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material impact on the operating results, financial condition or cash flows of the Company. With respect to existing legal proceedings, the Company has either determined that the existence of a material loss is not reasonably possible or that it is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company may incur substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred, in defending against these legal proceedings. Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into commercial agreements that may include indemnification provisions. Pursuant to such agreements, the Company may indemnify, hold harmless and defend an indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party. Some of the provisions will limit losses to those arising from third-party actions. In some cases, the indemnification will continue after the termination of the agreement. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these provisions is not determinable. To date, the Company has not incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification provisions. The Company has also entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and officers that may require the Company to indemnify its directors and officers against liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware corporate law. The Company also currently has directors’ and officers’ insurance. |