| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , approximately $28.7 billion and $28.8 billion , respectively, of unused credit was available to PayPal Credit account holders. While this amount represents the total unused credit available, we have not experienced, and do not anticipate, that all of our PayPal Credit account holders will access their entire available credit at any given point in time. In addition, the individual lines of credit that make up this unused credit are subject to periodic review and termination by the chartered financial institution that is the issuer of PayPal Credit products based on, among other things, account usage and customer creditworthiness. When a consumer funds a purchase in the U.S. using a PayPal Credit product issued by a chartered financial institution, the chartered financial institution extends credit to the consumer, funds the extension of credit at the point of sale and advances funds to the merchant. We subsequently purchase the receivables related to the consumer loans extended by the chartered financial institution and, as a result of such purchase, bear the risk of loss in the event of loan defaults. Although the chartered financial institution continues to own each customer account, we own the related receivable (excluding participation interests sold) and are responsible for all servicing functions related to the account. In the third quarter of 2015, we entered into a credit agreement ("Credit Agreement") that provides for an unsecured $2.0 billion , five -year revolving credit facility that includes a $150 million letter of credit sub-facility and a $150 million swingline sub-facility, with available borrowings under the revolving credit facility reduced by the amount of any letters of credit and swingline borrowings outstanding from time to time. Borrowings and other amounts payable under the Credit Agreement are guaranteed by our subsidiary PayPal, Inc. (the "Guarantor"). We may also, subject to the agreement of the applicable lenders, increase the commitments under the revolving credit facility by up to $500 million . Subject to specified conditions, we may designate one or more of our subsidiaries as additional borrowers under the Credit Agreement provided that we and the Guarantor guarantee all borrowings and other obligations of any such subsidiaries under the Credit Agreement. As of June 30, 2017 , no subsidiaries were designated as additional borrowers. Funds borrowed under the Credit Agreement may be used for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions and other general corporate purposes. As of June 30, 2017 , no borrowings or letters of credit were outstanding under the Credit Agreement. Accordingly, at June 30, 2017 , $2.0 billion of borrowing capacity was available for the purposes permitted by the Credit Agreement subject to customary conditions to borrowing. Litigation and Regulatory Matters Overview We are involved in legal and regulatory proceedings on an ongoing basis. Many of these proceedings are in early stages, and may seek an indeterminate amount of damages. If we believe that a loss arising from such matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we accrue the estimated liability in our financial statements. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue the low end of the range. For those proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, we have disclosed an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses or we have concluded that an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range arising directly from the proceeding (i.e., monetary damages or amounts paid in judgment or settlement) are not material. If we cannot estimate the probable or reasonably possible loss or range of losses arising from a legal proceeding, we have disclosed that fact. In assessing the materiality of a legal proceeding, we evaluate, among other factors, the amount of monetary damages claimed, as well as the potential impact of non-monetary remedies sought by plaintiffs (e.g., injunctive relief) that may require us to change our business practices in a manner that could have a material adverse impact on our business. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 11, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of such non-monetary remedies. Amounts accrued for legal and regulatory proceedings for which we believe a loss is probable were not material for the six months ended June 30, 2017 . Except as otherwise noted for the proceedings described in this Note 11, we have concluded, based on currently available information, that reasonably possible losses arising directly from the proceedings (i.e., monetary damages or amounts paid in judgment or settlement) in excess of our recorded accruals are also not material. However, legal and regulatory proceedings are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. If one or more matters were resolved against us in a reporting period for amounts in excess of management’s expectations, the impact on our operating results or financial condition for that reporting period could be material. Regulatory Proceedings We are subject to U.S. economic and trade sanctions administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). We have self-reported to OFAC certain transactions that were inadvertently processed but subsequently identified as possible violations of U.S. economic and trade sanctions. In March 2015, we reached a settlement with OFAC regarding possible violations arising from our sanctions compliance practices between 2009 and 2013, prior to the implementation of our real-time transaction scanning program. Subsequently, we have self-reported additional transactions as possible violations, and we have received new subpoenas from OFAC seeking additional information about certain of these transactions. Such self-reported transactions could result in claims or actions against us, including litigation, injunctions, damage awards, fines or penalties, or require us to change our business practices in a manner that could result in a material loss, require significant management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources or otherwise harm our business. On March 28, 2016, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) as part of its investigation to determine whether we, through our Venmo service, have been or are engaged in deceptive or unfair practices in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The CID requests the production of documents and answers to written questions related to our Venmo service. We are cooperating with the FTC in connection with the CID. The CID could lead to an enforcement action and/or one or more consent orders, which may result in substantial costs, including legal fees, fines, penalties, and remediation expenses and actions, and could require us to change the manner in which we operate Venmo. Legal Proceedings On December 28, 2016, a putative securities class action captioned Cho v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-07371 (the “Securities Case”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Court”). The Securities Case asserted claims relating to our disclosure in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on March 28, 2016, we received a Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC as part of its investigation to determine whether we, through our Venmo service, have been or are engaged in deceptive or unfair practices in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Securities Case purported to be brought on behalf of purchasers of eBay’s stock on or after December 19, 2013 who subsequently received the Company’s stock pursuant to eBay’s spin-off of the Company, effective as of July 17, 2015, and/or purchasers of the Company’s stock between July 20, 2015 and April 28, 2016, and asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and former interim Chief Financial Officer, and eBay and certain of its former officers, including the Chairman of our Board of Directors. The Securities Case alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements or omissions regarding our compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including the failure to disclose that we were purportedly engaging in unfair trade practices through our Venmo service and that as a result of alleged false and misleading statements or omissions, our stock traded at artificially inflated prices. The Securities Case sought unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the putative class members. On March 23, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the putative class. On May 12, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that, among other things, did not name eBay or the former eBay officers as defendants. On June 1, 2017, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Securities Case without prejudice. On January 12, 2017, a putative shareholder derivative action captioned Silverman v. Schulman, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00162, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California based on substantially similar allegations underlying the Securities Case described above (the “California Derivative Case”). On February 8, 2017, the Court entered an order formally relating the California Derivative Case to the Securities Case and assigning the case to the same judge handling the Securities Case. On the same day, the Court also entered an order staying the California Derivative Case pending resolution of the defendants’ anticipated motions to dismiss the Securities Case. On March 24, 2017, a second derivative action substantially similar to the California Derivative Case captioned Seeman v. Schulman, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00318-UNA, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware Derivative Case”). On April 19, 2017, the Court in the Delaware Derivative Case issued an order adopting a stipulation filed by the parties transferring the Delaware Derivative Case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California so that the Delaware Derivative Case can be consolidated with the pending California Derivative Case. On April 27 and 28, 2017, two additional shareholder derivative lawsuits substantially similar to the California Derivative Case and Delaware Derivative Case were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These cases are captioned Sims v. Schulman, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02428-HRL and Liss v. Schulman, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02446-NC (together with the California Derivative Case and the Delaware Derivative Case, the “Derivative Cases”). The Derivative Cases are purportedly brought on behalf of the Company and allege that the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, former interim Chief Financial Officer, and members of its Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company, violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and were unjustly enriched by, among other things, causing or permitting the Company to issue materially false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company’s compliance with applicable laws and regulation with respect to its Venmo service, as alleged in the Securities Case, and/or by permitting or causing the Company to engage in unfair trade practices through its Venmo service. The Derivative Cases seek, among other things, to recover unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company arising out of the individual defendants’ alleged wrongful conduct. Although plaintiffs in the Derivative Cases do not seek relief against the Company, we have certain indemnification obligations to the individual defendants. On June 30, 2017, the Court issued an order approving a stipulation filed by the parties in the Derivative Cases that consolidates these cases, appoints co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel for the consolidated case, and gives plaintiffs 30 days from the Court’s order to file a consolidated amended complaint or requires plaintiffs to dismiss the case within seven days following that date. We have received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) seeking the production of certain information related to our historical anti-money laundering program. We are cooperating with the DOJ in providing information in response to the subpoenas. We are unable to predict the outcome of the government's investigation. General Matters Other third parties have from time to time claimed, and others may claim in the future, that we have infringed their intellectual property rights. We are subject to patent disputes, and expect that we will increasingly be subject to additional patent infringement claims involving various aspects of our business as our products and services continue to expand in scope and complexity. Such claims may be brought directly or indirectly against our companies and/or against our customers (who may be entitled to contractual indemnification under their contracts with us), and we are subject to increased exposure to such claims as a result of our acquisitions, particularly in cases where we are entering into new lines of business in connection with such acquisitions. We have in the past been forced to litigate such claims, and we believe that additional lawsuits alleging such claims will be filed against us. Intellectual property claims, whether meritorious or not, are time consuming and costly to defend and resolve, could require expensive changes in our methods of doing business or could require us to enter into costly royalty or licensing agreements on unfavorable terms or make substantial payments to settle claims or to satisfy damages awarded by courts. From time to time, we are involved in other disputes or regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of business, including suits by our customers (individually or as class actions) alleging, among other things, improper disclosure of our prices, rules or policies, that our practices, prices, rules, policies or customer/user agreements violate applicable law or that we have acted unfairly and/or not acted in conformity with such prices, rules, policies or agreements. In addition to these types of disputes and regulatory inquiries, our operations are also subject to regulatory and/or legal review and/or challenges that tend to reflect the increasing global regulatory focus to which the payments industry is subject and, when taken as a whole with other regulatory and legislative action, such actions could result in the imposition of costly new compliance burdens on our business and customers and may lead to increased costs and decreased transaction volume and revenue. Further, the number and significance of these disputes and inquiries are increasing as we have grown larger, our business has expanded in scope (both in terms of the range of products and services that we offer and our geographical operations) and our products and services have increased in complexity. Any claims or regulatory actions against us, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, settlement payments, damage awards (including statutory damages for certain causes of action in certain jurisdictions), fines, penalties, injunctive relief or increased costs of doing business through adverse judgment or settlement, require us to change our business practices in expensive ways, require significant amounts of management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources or otherwise harm our business. Indemnification Provisions We entered into a separation and distribution agreement and various other agreements with eBay to govern the separation and relationship of the two companies going forward. These agreements provide for specific indemnity and liability obligations and could lead to disputes between us and eBay, which may be significant. In addition, the indemnity rights we have against eBay under the agreements may not be sufficient to protect us and our indemnity obligations to eBay may be significant. In the ordinary course of business, we include limited indemnification provisions in certain of our agreements with parties with whom we have commercial relationships, including our standard marketing, promotions, and application-programming-interface license (API) agreements. Under these contracts, we generally indemnify, hold harmless, and agree to reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with claims by any third party with respect to our domain names, trademarks, logos, and other branding elements to the extent that such marks are related to the subject agreement. In a limited number of agreements, we have provided an indemnity for other types of third-party claims, which are indemnities mainly related to intellectual property rights. We have also provided an indemnity to our payments processors in the event of certain third-party claims or card association fines against the processor arising out of conduct by us or our customers. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions due to our limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular situation. To date, no significant costs have been incurred, either individually or collectively, in connection with our indemnification provisions. Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , we had no off-balance sheet arrangements that have, or are reasonably likely to have, a current or future material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources. Protection Programs We provide merchants and consumers with protection programs on substantially all transactions completed through our Payments Platform. These programs protect both merchants and consumers from loss primarily due to fraud and counterparty performance. Our Buyer Protection Program provides protection to consumers for qualifying purchases by reimbursing the consumer for the full amount of the purchase if a purchased item does not arrive or does not match the seller’s description. Our Seller Protection Programs provide protection to merchants against claims that a transaction was not authorized by the buyer or claims that an item was not received by covering the seller for the full amount of the payment on eligible sales. The maximum potential exposure under our protection programs is estimated to be the portion of total eligible transaction volume (TPV) for which buyer or seller protection claims may be raised under our existing user agreements. Since eligible transactions are typically completed in a period significantly shorter than the period under which disputes may be opened, and based on our historical losses to date, we do not believe that that the maximum potential exposure is representative of our actual potential exposure. The actual amount of potential exposure cannot be quantified as we are unable to determine total eligible transactions where performance by a merchant or customer is incomplete or completed transactions that may result in a claim under our protection programs. We record a liability with respect to losses under these protection programs when they are probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The following table provides management's estimate of the maximum potential exposure related to our protection programs as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 : June 30, 2017 December 31, 2016 (In millions) Maximum potential exposure $ 139,479 $ 131,739 The following table provides the amount of allowance for transaction losses related to our protection programs as of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 : June 30, 2017 December 31, 2016 (In millions) Allowance for transaction losses $ 223 $ 222 |
