|Commitments and Contingencies
||Commitments and Contingencies
The aggregate amount of open purchase orders as of June 29, 2019 was approximately $584.6 million, of which $185.0 million related to the Company’s migration to a third-party hosting provider and $8.3 million was accrued for as of June 29, 2019. 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 29, 2019, $19.1 million was accrued for such liabilities to contract manufacturers.
Letters of Credit
As of June 29, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the Company had outstanding letters of credit of $36.6 million issued to cover the security deposit on the lease of its office headquarters in San Francisco, California, and other facility leases.
Jawbone. Aliphcom, Inc. d/b/a Jawbone (“Jawbone”) and the Company each initiated civil lawsuits against each other in 2015. These included a complaint filed by Jawbone in California state court alleging the misappropriation of certain trade secrets by six former Jawbone employees who had joined Fitbit and who were also named as defendants. On December 8, 2017, the parties announced the global settlement of all of the outstanding civil litigation on confidential terms, and all of the cases were 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 and February 1, 2018, the Company received subpoenas for documents from the same office. 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 sought class certification, restitution, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys’ fees. 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, which the court denied on December 8, 2017. The parties subsequently agreed to a settlement, and on August 1, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. At the hearing on September 13, 2018, the court denied preliminary settlement approval without prejudice and ordered revised settlement papers be filed. On November 29, 2018, the court granted preliminary settlement approval and the final approval hearing is scheduled for August 1, 2019.
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, unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, statutory penalties and damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys’ fees. On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated master class action complaint, and on May 19, 2016, they 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, a second amended consolidated master class action complaint was filed on behalf of plaintiff Rob Dunn, the only plaintiff not ordered to arbitration, as a purported class action. The complaint alleges the same common law claims as the prior class actions, as well as violations of false advertising, unfair competition, and consumer protection statutes of California and Arizona. The complaint seeks class certification, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, statutory penalties and damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys’ fees. 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, but 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 Company’s 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 added that plaintiff may amend in the event the Company’s arbitration agreement is found to be unenforceable.
On April 3, 2018, the Company received an arbitration demand from Kate McLellan, one of the original plaintiffs who was compelled to arbitration.
On July 19, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement of the lawsuit and the arbitration on confidential terms, which are not material to the Company.
Securities Litigation I. In 2016, a putative class action was filed in federal court against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering alleging violations of the federal securities laws based on alleged materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s PurePulse® heart rate tracking technology. A second putative class action was filed in California state court involving the same statements. The parties agreed to settle the federal and state class actions for $33.3 million, which the Company accrued for as of December 31, 2017. Following court approval of the settlement, the federal and state class action cases were dismissed with prejudice in May 2018.
During 2016 and 2017, a total of seven derivative lawsuits were filed in various federal courts and in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming the Company as nominal plaintiff and certain of the Company’s officers and directors as defendants. The federal cases are all stayed. The three cases filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery were consolidated and a second amended complaint was filed in which plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty and insider trading against certain defendants who sold shares in the Company’s initial public offering and/or a secondary offering. On April 26, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Delaware cases for failure to state a claim. On December 14, 2018, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a motion for interlocutory appeal, which was denied on January 14, 2019. The Company then filed a Notice of Appeal in the Delaware Supreme Court, which was denied on January 30, 2019.
The Company believes that the allegations in the derivative lawsuits 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.
Securities Litigation II. On November 1, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) arising out of alleged materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s guidance for the fourth quarter of 2016 and full fiscal year 2016 that was provided during the third and fourth quarters of 2016. On November 15, 2018, a second putative securities class action was filed in the same court alleging similar claims against the same defendants. On April 25, 2019, the two actions were consolidated, and a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on June 24, 2019. The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act against the Company and certain officers relating to the Company’s 2016 guidance, on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased Fitbit stock from August 2, 2016 through January 30, 2017. Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys’ fees.
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.
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.
IndemnificationIn 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.