1. Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

The accompanying condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Netflix, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary (the “Company”) have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“U.S.”) and are consistent in all material respects with those applied in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. The preparation of condensed consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and judgments that affect the amounts reported in the condensed consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Examples include the estimates of useful lives and residual value of the Company’s content library, the valuation of stock-based compensation, the recognition and measurement of income tax assets and liabilities and royalties that may be due to performing rights organizations. The actual results experienced by the Company may differ from management’s estimates.

The interim financial information is unaudited, but reflects all normal recurring adjustments that are, in the opinion of management, necessary to fairly present the information set forth herein. The interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements and related notes included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on February 22, 2010. Interim results are not necessarily indicative of the results for a full year.

Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to current period presentation. Specifically, all prepayments related to content acquisition and licensing including those previously included in prepaid revenue sharing expenses and in other current assets have been reclassified to prepaid content. The remaining balance of other current assets has also been reclassified to be presented in combination with prepaid expenses.

There have been no material changes in the Company’s significant accounting policies as compared to the significant accounting policies described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

There have been no recent accounting pronouncements or changes in accounting pronouncements during the three months ended March 31, 2010, as compared to the recent accounting pronouncements described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, that are of significance, or potential significance to the Company.

2. Net Income Per Share

Basic net income per share is computed using the weighted-average number of outstanding shares of common stock during the period. Diluted net income per share is computed using the weighted-average number of outstanding shares of common stock and, when dilutive, potential common shares outstanding during the period. Potential common shares consist primarily of incremental shares issuable upon the assumed exercise of stock options and shares currently purchasable pursuant to the Company’s employee stock purchase plan using the treasury stock method. The computation of net income per share is as follows:

Employee stock options with exercise prices greater than the average market price of the common stock were excluded from the diluted calculation as their inclusion would have been anti-dilutive. The following table summarizes the potential common shares excluded from the diluted calculation:

3. Short-Term Investments and Fair Value Measurement

The Company’s investment policy is consistent with the definition of available-for-sale securities. The Company does not buy and hold securities principally for the purpose of selling them in the near future. The Company’s policy is focused on the preservation of capital, liquidity and return. From time to time, the Company may sell certain securities but the objectives are generally not to generate profits on short-term differences in price. Short-term investments are therefore classified as available-for-sale securities and are reported at fair value as follows:

The following tables show the gross unrealized losses and fair value of the Company’s investments in an unrealized loss position, aggregated by investment category and length of time that individual securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position:

Because the Company does not intend to sell the investments and it is not likely that the Company will be required to sell the investments before recovery of their amortized cost basis, the Company does not consider those investments with an unrealized loss to be other-than-temporarily impaired at March 31, 2010. There were no material other-than-temporary impairments or credit losses related to available-for-sale securities in the three months ended March 31, 2010 or 2009.

The estimated fair value of short-term investments by contractual maturity as of March 31, 2010 is as follows:

The Company measures certain financial assets at fair value on a recurring basis, including cash equivalents and available-for-sale securities. Fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based on the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability.

The hierarchy level assigned to each security in the Company’s available-for-sale portfolio and cash equivalents is based on its assessment of the transparency and reliability of the inputs used in the valuation of such instrument at the measurement date.

4. Long-term Debt

As of March 31, 2010, the Company had $200.0 million of long-term debt outstanding. The debt consists of $200.0 million aggregate principal amount of 8.50% senior notes due November 15, 2017 (“the Notes”). Interest on the Notes is payable semi-annually at a rate of 8.50% per annum on May 15 and November 15 of each year, commencing on May 15, 2010.

The 8.50% Notes include, among other terms and conditions, limitations on the Company’s ability to create, incur, assume or be liable for indebtedness (other than specified types of permitted indebtedness); dispose of assets outside the ordinary course (subject to specified exceptions); acquire, merge or consolidate with or into another person or entity (other than specified types of permitted acquisitions); create, incur or allow any lien on any of its property or assign any right to receive income (except for specified permitted liens); make investments (other than specified types of investments); or pay dividends or make distributions (each subject to specified exceptions). At March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the Company was in compliance with these covenants.

Based on quoted market prices, the fair value of the 8.50% Notes as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 was approximately $210.0 million and $207.5 million, respectively.

5. Balance Sheet Components

Content Library, Net

Content library and accumulated amortization are as follows:

Property and Equipment, Net

Property and equipment and accumulated depreciation are as follows:

6. Other Comprehensive Income

Other comprehensive income consists of unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities, net of tax. The components of comprehensive income are as follows:

7. Stockholders’ Equity

Stock Repurchases

On August 6, 2009, the Company announced that its Board of Directors authorized a stock repurchase plan that enables the Company to repurchase up to $300 million of its common stock through the end of 2010. The timing and actual number of shares repurchased will depend on various factors including price, corporate and regulatory requirements, alternative investment opportunities and other market conditions. During the three months ended March 31, 2010, under this program, the Company repurchased 1,670,000 shares of common stock at an average price of approximately $65 per share for an aggregate amount of approximately $108 million. Shares repurchased under this program have been retired.

        Shares repurchased by the Company are accounted for when the transaction is settled. There were no unsettled share repurchases at March 31, 2010. Shares repurchased and retired are deducted from common stock for par value and from additional paid in capital for the excess over par value. If additional paid in capital has been exhausted, the excess over par value is deducted from retained earnings. Direct costs incurred to acquire the shares are included in the total cost of the shares. In the first quarter of 2010, $84.9 million was deducted from retained earnings related to share repurchases.

Stock-Based Compensation

A summary of option activity during the three months ended March 31, 2010 is as follows:

The aggregate intrinsic value in the table above represents the total pretax intrinsic value (the difference between the Company’s closing stock price on the last trading day of the first quarter of 2010 and the exercise price, multiplied by the number of in-the-money options) that would have been received by the option holders had all option holders exercised their options on March 31, 2010. This amount changes based on the fair market value of the Company’s common stock. Total intrinsic value of options exercised for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 was $22.8 million and $16.4 million, respectively.

Cash received from option exercises for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 was $9.9 million and $13.6 million, respectively.

The following table summarizes the assumptions used to value option grants using the lattice-binomial model:

In the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company used a suboptimal exercise factor of 2.15 for executives and 1.78 for non-executives, resulting in a calculated expected life of the option grants of five years for executives and four years for non-executives. In the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company used a suboptimal exercise factor of 1.87 for executives and 1.73 for non-executives, resulting in a calculated expected life of four years for executives and three years for non-executives.

The weighted-average fair value of employee stock options granted during the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 was $27.59 and $14.10 per share, respectively. The following table summarizes stock-based compensation expense, net of tax, related to stock option plans and employee stock purchases for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 which was allocated as follows:

8. Income Taxes

The effective tax rate for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 is 40.6% and 40.2%, respectively.

As of December 31, 2009, the Company had $13.2 million of gross unrecognized tax benefits. During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company had an increase in gross unrecognized tax benefits of approximately $0.3 million. The gross uncertain tax positions, if recognized by the Company, will result in a reduction of approximately $10.9 million to the tax provision thereby favorably impacting the Company’s effective tax rate. The Company does not believe it is reasonably possible that its unrecognized tax benefits would significantly change over the next twelve months. Accordingly, the Company’s unrecognized tax benefits are classified as other non-current liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.

The Company includes interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits within the provision for income tax expense.

The Company files income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and all of the states where income tax is imposed. The Company is subject to U.S. federal and state income tax examinations for years after 1996.

9. Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Financing Obligation

In June 2004 and June 2006, the Company entered into two separate lease agreements for the Los Gatos, California headquarters site. Because the terms of the original facilities lease required the Company’s involvement in the construction funding of the buildings, the Company is the “deemed owner” (for accounting purposes only) of these buildings in accordance with ASC topic 840.40 Leases—Sale-Leaseback Transactions as it applies to situations where an entity is involved with the construction funding of an asset that will be leased when the construction project is completed.

        Accordingly, the Company recorded an asset of $40.7 million, representing the total costs of the buildings and improvements, including the costs paid by the lessor (the legal owner of the buildings), with a corresponding liability. Upon completion of construction of each building, the Company did not meet the sale-leaseback criteria for derecognition of the building assets and liabilities. Therefore the leases are accounted for as financing obligations and the building is depreciated over a 30 year useful life. The monthly rent payments made to the lessor under the lease agreements are recorded in the Company’s financial statements as land lease expense and principal and interest on the financing liabilities.

In the first quarter of 2010, the Company extended the facility leases for the Los Gatos buildings for an additional five year term after the remaining term of the original lease, thus increasing the future minimum payments under lease financing obligations as of March 31, 2010 to $26.8 million. The leases will continue to be accounted for as financing obligations and no gain or loss was recorded as a result of the lease financing modification. The lease financing obligation balance at the end of the extended lease term will be approximately $25.8 million which approximates the net book value of the buildings to be relinquished to the lessor.

Streaming Content

The Company classifies streaming content as either a current or non-current asset in the consolidated balance sheets based on the estimated time of usage after certain criteria have been met including availability of the streaming content for its first showing. The Company had $179.1 million and $114.8 million of commitments at March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively, related to streaming content license agreements commitments that do not meet asset recognition criteria.

The Company is currently involved in negotiations with performing rights organizations (PROs) that hold the rights to music used in connection with streaming content. The Company accrues for estimated royalties that may be due to PROs. The outcome of these negotiations is uncertain. Additionally, pending litigation between certain PROs and other third parties could impact our negotiations. If we are unable to reach mutually acceptable terms with the PROs, the Company could become involved in similar litigation. The results of any negotiation or litigation may be materially different from management’s estimates.

Litigation

From time to time, in the normal course of its operations, the Company is a party to litigation matters and claims, including claims relating to employee relations and business practices. Litigation can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and the Company cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood or potential dollar amount of any adverse results. The Company expenses legal fees as incurred. Listed below are material legal proceedings to which the Company is a party. An unfavorable outcome to any of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

On March 29, 2010, Parallel Networks, LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, captioned Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et. al , Civil Action No 6:10-cv-00111-LED. The complaint alleges that the Company infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,446,111 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Client-Server Communication Using a Limited Capability Client Over a Low-Speed Communication Link,” issued on September 3, 2002. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages, interest and fees, and seeks to permanently enjoin the Company from infringing the patent in the future.

On December 17, 2009, plaintiffs Jane Doe, Nelly Valdez-Marquez, Anthony Sinopoli and Paul Navarro filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C09-05903 on behalf of (1) a nationwide class consisting of “all Netflix subscribers that rented a Netflix movie and also rated a movie on the Netflix website during the period of October 1998 through December 2005, residing in the United States,” (2) a subclass of California residents and (3) an injunctive class consisting of “all Netflix subscribers since 2006, residing in the United States.” Plaintiffs alleged that Netflix breached the privacy rights of its subscribers by, among other things, releasing certain data in connection with the “Netflix Prize” contest. Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710; California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750 (“CLRA”); California Customer Records Act, Civil Code § 1798.80; California’s Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof’l Code §§ 17200, 17500 (“UCL”); and common law actions for Unjust Enrichment and Public Disclosure of Private Facts. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief; statutory, actual and punitive damages; disgorgement of profits; and injunctive relief. The Company has settled this action and, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit on March 19, 2010.

On September 25, 2009, Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, captioned Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., et. al, Civil Action No. 6:09-cv-422. The complaint alleges that the Company infringed U.S. Patents Nos. 5,649,131 entitled “Communications Protocol” issued on July 15, 1997, 5,623,656 entitled “Script Based Data Communication System and Method Utilizing State Memory” issued on April 22, 1997 and 5,404,507 entitled “Apparatus and Method for Finding Records in a Database by Formulating a Query Using Equivalent Terms Which Correspond to Terms in the Input Query,” issued April 4, 1995. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages, interest, costs and fees, and seeks to permanently enjoin the Company from infringing the patents in the future.

In January through April of 2009, a number of purported anti-trust class action suits were filed against the Company. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Walmart.com USA LLC (collectively, Wal-Mart) were also named as defendants in these suits. Most of the suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and other federal district courts around the country. A number of suits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs, who are current or former Netflix customers, generally allege that Netflix and Wal-Mart entered into an agreement to divide the markets for sales and online rentals of DVDs in the United States, which resulted in higher Netflix subscription prices. The complaints, which assert violations of federal and/or state antitrust laws, seek injunctive relief, costs (including attorneys’ fees) and damages in an unspecified amount. On April 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered all cases pending in federal court transferred to the Northern District of California to be consolidated or coordinated for pre-trial purposes. These cases have been assigned the multidistrict litigation number MDL-2029. On March 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The cases pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County have been consolidated. In addition, in May of 2009, three additional lawsuits were filed—two in the Northern District of California and one in the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County—alleging identical conduct and seeking identical relief. In these three cases, the plaintiffs are current or former subscribers to the online DVD rental service offered by Blockbuster Inc. The two cases filed in federal court on behalf of Blockbuster subscribers have been related to MDL-2029. On December 1, 2009, the federal Court entered an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the two federal cases filed on behalf of Blockbuster subscribers. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 1, 2010. Defendants moved to dismiss the Blockbuster subscribers’ amended complaint on March 31, 2010. The lawsuit filed in Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County has been coordinated with the cases pending in Santa Clara County.

On December 26, 2008, Quito Enterprises, LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, captioned Quito Enterprises, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et. al, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-23543-AJ. The complaint alleges that the Company infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,890,152 entitled “Personal Feedback Browser for Obtaining Media Files” issued on March 30, 1999. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, and seeks to permanently enjoin the Company from infringing the patent in the future. On September 30, 2009, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity. The Company has settled this action, and on March 8, 2010, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Court entered an Order dismissing all claims against the Company with prejudice.

On October 24, 2008, Media Queue, LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, captioned Media Queue, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et. al , Civil Action No. CIV 08-402-KEW. The complaint alleges that the Company infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,389,243 entitled “Notification System and Method for Media Queue” issued on June 17, 2008. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages, interest and fees, and seeks to permanently enjoin the Company from infringing the patent in the future. On February 24, 2009, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California. On August 14, 2009, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. A hearing on the motion was held on November 17, 2009. On December 1, 2009, the Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. On February 10, 2010, plaintiff appealed the summary judgment ruling.

On December 28, 2007, Parallel Networks, LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, captioned Parallel Networks, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et. al , Civil Action No 2:07-cv-562-DF. The complaint alleges that the Company infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 5,894,554 and 6,415,335 B1 entitled “System For Managing Dynamic Web Page Generation Requests by Intercepting Request at Web Server and Routing to Page Server Thereby Releasing Web Server to Process Other Requests” and “System and Method for Managing Dynamic Web Page Generation Requests”, issued on April 13, 1999 and July 2, 2002, respectively. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages, interest and fees, and seeks to permanently enjoin the Company from infringing the patent in the future. On March 10, 2010, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity. On March 26, 2010, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. Hearing dates have not been scheduled for these motions.

Indemnification

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into contractual arrangements under which it has agreed to provide indemnification of varying scope and terms to business partners and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of the Company’s breach of such agreements and out of intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In these circumstances, payment may be conditional on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the particular contract. Further, the Company’s obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of time or amount, and, in some instances, the Company may have recourse against third parties for certain payments. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and certain of its officers that will require it, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers. The terms of such obligations vary.

It is not possible to make a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential amount of future payments under these or similar agreements due to the conditional nature of the Company’s obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. No amount has been accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to these indemnification obligations.