Commitments and Contingencies | 13. Commitments and Contingencies Warranty Liabilities The activity in the accrued warranty liabilities account was as follows (in thousands): Three Months Ended March 30, 2019 March 31, 2018 Balance at beginning of year $ 10,389 $ 9,320 Additions charged to costs and expenses for current-year sales 3,192 3,500 Deductions from reserves (3,127 ) (3,271 ) Changes in liability for pre-existing warranties during the current year, including expirations 1,166 (77 ) Balance at end of period $ 11,620 $ 9,472 Legal Proceedings We are involved from time to time in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business, including primarily commercial, product liability, employment and intellectual property claims. In accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, we record a liability in our consolidated financial statements with respect to any of these matters when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. If a loss is reasonably possible but not known or probable, and may be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed. With respect to currently pending legal proceedings, we have not established an estimated range of reasonably possible losses either because we believe that we have valid defenses to claims asserted against us or the proceeding has not advanced to a stage of discovery that would enable us to establish an estimate. We currently do not expect the outcome of pending legal proceedings to have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Litigation, however, is inherently unpredictable, and it is possible that the ultimate outcome of one or more claims asserted against us could adversely impact our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. We expense legal costs as incurred. On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade commenced a purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against Sleep Number alleging that Sleep Number violated New Jersey consumer statutes by failing to provide to purchasing consumers certain disclosures required by the New Jersey Furniture Regulations. It is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered no actual damages or in any way relied upon or were impacted by the alleged omissions. Nonetheless, on behalf of a purported class of New Jersey purchasers of Sleep Number beds and bases, plaintiffs sought to recover a $100 statutory fine for each alleged omission, along with attorneys’ fees and costs. Sleep Number removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which subsequently granted Sleep Number’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which certified two questions of law to the New Jersey Supreme Court relating to whether plaintiffs who have suffered no actual injury may bring claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the certified questions and on April 16, 2018, ruled in our favor on one of the two questions, holding that a consumer only has standing to bring a claim under the relevant statute if the consumer has been harmed by the defendant’s conduct. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the federal district court, which dismissed the lawsuit on March 5, 2019. Plaintiffs’ deadline to appeal the dismissal has passed and the dismissal is final. On September 18, 2018, former Home Delivery Technician, Donald Cassels, and former Field Services Delivery Assistant, Jose Cadenas, filed suit in Superior Court in San Francisco County, California alleging representative claims on a purported class action basis under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff class to that group. The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed or refused to adopt adequate practices, policies and procedures relating to wage payments, record keeping, employment disclosures, meal and rest breaks, among other claims, under California law. The plaintiffs purport to represent all former and current Sleep Number employees in the State of California aggrieved by the alleged practices. The Complaint seeks damages in the form of civil penalties and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, and expressly disclaims the recovery of any purported individual specific relief or underpaid wages. After Sleep Number raised issues with the plaintiffs’ choice of venue, the Court transferred venue from the Superior Court in San Francisco County to Superior Court in Fresno County. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. |