Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 15—Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings On April 12, 2019, Scarleth Samara filed a putative class action against IDT Telecom in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana alleging certain violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Plaintiff alleges that in October of 2017, IDT Telecom sent unauthorized marketing messages to her cellphone. IDT Telecom filed a motion to compel arbitration. On or about August 19, 2019, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the pending court action and the parties intend to proceed with arbitration. At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claim. On January 22, 2019, Jose Rosales filed a putative class action against IDT America, IDT Domestic Telecom and IDT International in California state court alleging certain violations of employment law. Plaintiff alleges that these companies failed to compensate members of the putative class in accordance with California law. The Company is evaluating the claims, and at this stage, is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims. In August 2019, the Company filed a cross complaint against Rosales alleging trade secret and other violations. On May 21, 2018, Erik Dennis filed a putative class action against IDT Telecom and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging violations of Do Not Call Regulations promulgated by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. On October 31, 2019, the parties settled the matter and filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. On May 2, 2018, Jean Carlos Sanchez filed a putative class action against IDT Telecom in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the Company sent unauthorized marketing messages to cellphones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. On July 26, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal. The Company is evaluating the claim, and at this stage, is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. On April 24, 2018, Sprint Communications Company L.P. filed a patent infringement claim against the Company and certain of its affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,298,064; 6,330,224; 6,343,084; 6,452,932; 6,463,052; 6,473,429; 6,563,918; 6,633,561; 6,697,340; 6,999,463; 7,286,561; 7,324,534; 7,327,728; 7,505,454; and 7,693,131. Plaintiff was seeking damages and injunctive relief. On June 28, 2018, Sprint dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The Company is evaluating the underlying claim, and at this stage, is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend any claim of infringement of the listed patents. On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, The Patrick Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors. The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims between Straight Path and the Company related to potential indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), as well as the sale of Straight Path's subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the Company in connection with that settlement. That action was consolidated with a similar action that was initiated by The Arbitrage Fund. The Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, (i) a declaration that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the alternative, that demand on the Straight Path Board is excused; (ii) that the term sheet is invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the unfair price stockholders received in the merger between Straight Path and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight Path's Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas, Davidi Jonas, and the Company to disgorge any profits for the benefit of the class Plaintiffs. On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Following closing of the transaction, the Delaware Chancery Court denied the motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss. The parties are engaged in discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter (see Note 9). At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, the Company believes that none of the other legal proceedings to which the Company is a party will have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. Sales Tax Contingency On June 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., holding that a state may require a remote seller with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales tax on goods and services provided to purchasers in the state, overturning certain existing court precedent. The Company is evaluating its state tax filings with respect to the Wayfair decision and is in the process of reviewing its collection practices. It is possible that one or more jurisdictions may assert that the Company has liability for periods for which it has not collected sales, use or other similar taxes, and if such an assertion or assertions were successful it could materially and adversely affect the Company's business, financial position and operating results. One or more jurisdictions may change their laws or policies to apply their sales, use or other similar taxes to the Company's operations, and if such changes were made it could materially and adversely affect the Company's business, financial position and operating results. Regulatory Fee Audit The Company's 2017 FCC Form 499-A, which reports its calendar year 2016 revenue, related to payments due to the FCC, is currently under audit by the Internal Audit Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company. At October 31, 2019 and July 31, 2019, the Company's accrued expenses included $42.1 million and $44.7 million, respectively, for these regulatory fees for the years covered by the audit, as well as prior and subsequent years. Purchase Commitments At October 31, 2019, the Company had purchase commitments of $30.7 million, including the aggregate commitment of $26.5 million under the telecom services commitments described below. Telecom Services Commitments In May 2019, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with a telecom operator in Central America for among other things, termination of inbound and outbound international long-distance voice calls. The MOU is effective until December 31, 2019, unless superseded by the execution of a definitive agreement. The Company has committed to pay such telecom operator monthly committed amounts during the term of the MOU. The parties intend to draft and execute a definitive agreement as soon as practicable. In August 2017, the Company entered into a Reciprocal Services Agreement with a telecom operator in Central America for a full range of services, including, but not limited to, termination of inbound and outbound international long-distance voice calls. The Company has committed to pay such telecom operator monthly committed amounts during the term of the agreement. In addition, under certain limited circumstances, either party has the right to terminate the agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company deposited $9.2 million into an escrow account as security for the benefit of the telecom operator, which is included in "Other current assets" in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet based on the terms and conditions of the agreement. Performance Bonds The Company has performance bonds issued through third parties for the benefit of various states in order to comply with the states' financial requirements for money remittance licenses and telecommunications resellers. At October 31, 2019, the Company had aggregate performance bonds of $17.5 million outstanding. Company Restricted Cash and Cash Equivalents The Company treats unrestricted cash and cash equivalents held by IDT Payment Services, which provides the Company's international money transfer services in the United States, as substantially restricted and unavailable for other purposes. At October 31, 2019 and July 31, 2019, "Cash and cash equivalents" in the Company's consolidated balance sheets included an aggregate of $9.8 million and $13.2 million, respectively, held by IDT Payment Services that was unavailable for other purposes. FCC Investigation of Straight Path Spectrum LLC On September 20, 2016, the Company received a letter of inquiry from the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC requesting certain information and materials related to an investigation of potential violations by Straight Path Spectrum LLC (formerly a subsidiary of the Company and Straight Path) in connection with licenses to operate on the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands of the Fixed Microwave Services. The Company has cooperated with the FCC in this matter and has responded to the letter of inquiry. If the FCC were to pursue separate action against the Company, the FCC could seek to fine or impose regulatory penalties or civil liability on the Company related to activities during the period of ownership by the Company.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Oct. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 15—Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

On April 12, 2019, Scarleth Samara filed a putative class action against IDT Telecom in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana alleging certain violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Plaintiff alleges that in October of 2017, IDT Telecom sent unauthorized marketing messages to her cellphone. IDT Telecom filed a motion to compel arbitration. On or about August 19, 2019, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the pending court action and the parties intend to proceed with arbitration. At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claim.

On January 22, 2019, Jose Rosales filed a putative class action against IDT America, IDT Domestic Telecom and IDT International in California state court alleging certain violations of employment law. Plaintiff alleges that these companies failed to compensate members of the putative class in accordance with California law. The Company is evaluating the claims, and at this stage, is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims. In August 2019, the Company filed a cross complaint against Rosales alleging trade secret and other violations.

On May 21, 2018, Erik Dennis filed a putative class action against IDT Telecom and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging violations of Do Not Call Regulations promulgated by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. On October 31, 2019, the parties settled the matter and filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.

On May 2, 2018, Jean Carlos Sanchez filed a putative class action against IDT Telecom in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the Company sent unauthorized marketing messages to cellphones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. On July 26, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal. The Company is evaluating the claim, and at this stage, is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

On April 24, 2018, Sprint Communications Company L.P. filed a patent infringement claim against the Company and certain of its affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,298,064; 6,330,224; 6,343,084; 6,452,932; 6,463,052; 6,473,429; 6,563,918; 6,633,561; 6,697,340; 6,999,463; 7,286,561; 7,324,534; 7,327,728; 7,505,454; and 7,693,131. Plaintiff was seeking damages and injunctive relief. On June 28, 2018, Sprint dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The Company is evaluating the underlying claim, and at this stage, is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend any claim of infringement of the listed patents.

On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, The Patrick Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors. The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims between Straight Path and the Company related to potential indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), as well as the sale of Straight Path's subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the Company in connection with that settlement. That action was consolidated with a similar action that was initiated by The Arbitrage Fund. The Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, (i) a declaration that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the alternative, that demand on the Straight Path Board is excused; (ii) that the term sheet is invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the unfair price stockholders received in the merger between Straight Path and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight Path's Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas, Davidi Jonas, and the Company to disgorge any profits for the benefit of the class Plaintiffs. On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Following closing of the transaction, the Delaware Chancery Court denied the motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss. The parties are engaged in discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter (see Note 9). At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any.

In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, the Company believes that none of the other legal proceedings to which the Company is a party will have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

Sales Tax Contingency

On June 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., holding that a state may require a remote seller with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales tax on goods and services provided to purchasers in the state, overturning certain existing court precedent. The Company is evaluating its state tax filings with respect to the Wayfair decision and is in the process of reviewing its collection practices. It is possible that one or more jurisdictions may assert that the Company has liability for periods for which it has not collected sales, use or other similar taxes, and if such an assertion or assertions were successful it could materially and adversely affect the Company's business, financial position and operating results. One or more jurisdictions may change their laws or policies to apply their sales, use or other similar taxes to the Company's operations, and if such changes were made it could materially and adversely affect the Company's business, financial position and operating results.

Regulatory Fee Audit

The Company's 2017 FCC Form 499-A, which reports its calendar year 2016 revenue, related to payments due to the FCC, is currently under audit by the Internal Audit Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company. At October 31, 2019 and July 31, 2019, the Company's accrued expenses included $42.1 million and $44.7 million, respectively, for these regulatory fees for the years covered by the audit, as well as prior and subsequent years.

Purchase Commitments

At October 31, 2019, the Company had purchase commitments of $30.7 million, including the aggregate commitment of $26.5 million under the telecom services commitments described below.

Telecom Services Commitments

In May 2019, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with a telecom operator in Central America for among other things, termination of inbound and outbound international long-distance voice calls. The MOU is effective until December 31, 2019, unless superseded by the execution of a definitive agreement. The Company has committed to pay such telecom operator monthly committed amounts during the term of the MOU. The parties intend to draft and execute a definitive agreement as soon as practicable.

In August 2017, the Company entered into a Reciprocal Services Agreement with a telecom operator in Central America for a full range of services, including, but not limited to, termination of inbound and outbound international long-distance voice calls. The Company has committed to pay such telecom operator monthly committed amounts during the term of the agreement. In addition, under certain limited circumstances, either party has the right to terminate the agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company deposited $9.2 million into an escrow account as security for the benefit of the telecom operator, which is included in "Other current assets" in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet based on the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Performance Bonds

The Company has performance bonds issued through third parties for the benefit of various states in order to comply with the states' financial requirements for money remittance licenses and telecommunications resellers. At October 31, 2019, the Company had aggregate performance bonds of $17.5 million outstanding.

Company Restricted Cash and Cash Equivalents

The Company treats unrestricted cash and cash equivalents held by IDT Payment Services, which provides the Company's international money transfer services in the United States, as substantially restricted and unavailable for other purposes. At October 31, 2019 and July 31, 2019, "Cash and cash equivalents" in the Company's consolidated balance sheets included an aggregate of $9.8 million and $13.2 million, respectively, held by IDT Payment Services that was unavailable for other purposes.

FCC Investigation of Straight Path Spectrum LLC

On September 20, 2016, the Company received a letter of inquiry from the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC requesting certain information and materials related to an investigation of potential violations by Straight Path Spectrum LLC (formerly a subsidiary of the Company and Straight Path) in connection with licenses to operate on the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands of the Fixed Microwave Services. The Company has cooperated with the FCC in this matter and has responded to the letter of inquiry. If the FCC were to pursue separate action against the Company, the FCC could seek to fine or impose regulatory penalties or civil liability on the Company related to activities during the period of ownership by the Company.