COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

We have entered into non-cancellable operating, capital, and finance leases for equipment and office, fulfillment, sortation, delivery, data center, and renewable energy facilities. Rental expense under operating lease agreements was $322 million and $411 million for Q1 2016 and Q1 2017.

The following summarizes our principal contractual commitments, excluding open orders for purchases that support normal operations, as of March 31, 2017 (in millions):



	Nine Months Ended December 31,		Year Ended December 31,
	2017		2018		2019		2020		2021		Thereafter		Total
Debt principal and interest	$	1,336	$	328	$	1,571	$	467	$	1,246	$	7,911	$	12,859
Capital lease obligations, including interest (1)	3,488		3,609		2,254		640		279		280		10,550
Finance lease obligations, including interest (2)	183		250		254		256		264		2,102		3,309
Operating leases	1,091		1,356		1,244		1,116		988		4,025		9,820
Unconditional purchase obligations (3)	505		662		362		129		51		26		1,735
Other commitments (4) (5)	912		1,022		734		592		479		3,927		7,666
Total commitments	$	7,515	$	7,227	$	6,419	$	3,200	$	3,307	$	18,271	$	45,939

___________________


(1)	Excluding interest, current capital lease obligations of $4.0 billion and $4.4 billion are recorded within “Accrued expenses and other” as of December 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017, and $5.1 billion and $5.8 billion are recorded within “Other long-term liabilities” as of December 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017.


(2)	Excluding interest, current finance lease obligations of $144 million and $159 million are recorded within “Accrued expenses and other” as of December 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017, and $2.4 billion and $2.5 billion are recorded within “Other long-term liabilities” as of December 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017.

(3)

Includes unconditional purchase obligations related to long-term agreements to acquire and license digital media content that are not reflected on the consolidated balance sheets. For those agreements with variable terms, we do not estimate the total obligation beyond any minimum quantities and/or pricing as of the reporting date. Purchase obligations associated with renewal provisions solely at the option of the content provider are included to the extent such commitments are fixed or a minimum amount is specified.


(4)	Includes the estimated timing and amounts of payments for rent and tenant improvements associated with build-to-suit lease arrangements and equipment lease arrangements that have not been placed in service and digital media content liabilities associated with long-term digital media content assets with initial terms greater than one year.


(5)	Excludes $1.8 billion of accrued tax contingencies for which we cannot make a reasonably reliable estimate of the amount and period of payment, if any.

Additionally, in March 2017, we signed an agreement to acquire Souq Group Ltd., an e-commerce company, for $580 million in cash, subject to adjustments. We expect to fund this acquisition with cash on hand, and we expect the acquisition to close in 2017, subject to customary closing conditions.

Pledged Assets

As of December 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017, we have pledged or otherwise restricted $715 million and $971 million of our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities, and certain property and equipment as collateral for standby and trade letters of credit, guarantees, debt relating to certain international operations, real estate leases, and amounts due to third-party sellers in certain jurisdictions.

Other Contingencies

In 2016, we determined that we processed and delivered orders of consumer products for certain individuals and entities located outside Iran covered by the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act or other United States sanctions and export control laws. The consumer products included books, music, other media, apparel, home and kitchen, health and beauty, jewelry, office, consumer electronics, software, lawn and patio, grocery, and automotive products. Our review is ongoing and we have voluntarily reported these orders to the United States Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control and the United States Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security. We intend to cooperate fully with OFAC and BIS with respect to their review, which may result in the imposition of penalties. For additional information, see Item 5 of Part II, “Other Information — Disclosure Pursuant to Section 13(r) of the Exchange Act.”

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved from time to time in claims, proceedings, and litigation, including the matters described in Item 8 of Part II, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data — Note 7 — Commitments and Contingencies — Legal Proceedings” of our 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K as supplemented by the following:

In November 2007, an Austrian copyright collection society, Austro-Mechana, filed lawsuits against Amazon.com International Sales, Inc., Amazon EU S.à r.l., Amazon.de GmbH, Amazon.com GmbH, and Amazon Logistik in the Commercial Court of Vienna, Austria and in the District Court of Munich, Germany seeking to collect a tariff on blank digital media sold by our EU-based retail websites to customers located in Austria. In July 2008, the German court stayed the German case pending a final decision in the Austrian case. In July 2010, the Austrian court ruled in favor of Austro-Mechana and ordered us to report all sales of products to which the tariff potentially applies for a determination of damages. We contested Austro-Mechana’s claim and in September 2010 commenced an appeal in the Commercial Court of Vienna. We lost this appeal and in March 2011 commenced an appeal in the Supreme Court of Austria. In October 2011, the Austrian Supreme Court referred the case to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”). In July 2013, the ECJ ruled that EU law does not preclude application of the tariff where certain conditions are met and directed the case back to the Austrian Supreme Court for further proceedings. In October 2013, the Austrian Supreme Court referred the case back to the Commercial Court of Vienna for further fact finding to determine whether the tariff on blank digital media meets the conditions set by the ECJ. In August 2015, the Commercial Court of Vienna ruled that the Austrian tariff regime does not meet the conditions the ECJ set and dismissed Austro-Mechana’s claims. In September 2015, Austro-Mechana appealed that judgment to the Higher Commercial Court of Vienna. In December 2015, the Higher Commercial Court of Vienna confirmed that the Austrian tariff regime does not meet the conditions the ECJ set and dismissed Austro-Mechana’s appeal. In February 2016, Austro-Mechana appealed that judgment to the Austrian Supreme Court. In March 2017, the Austrian Supreme Court ruled in favor of Austro-Mechana and referred the case back to the Commercial Court of Vienna for further proceedings. A number of additional actions have been filed making similar allegations. In December 2012, a German copyright collection society, Zentralstelle für private Überspielungsrechte (“ZPU”), filed a complaint against Amazon EU S.à r.l., Amazon Media EU S.à r.l., Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l., Amazon Payments Europe SCA, Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS, and Amazon Eurasia Holdings S.à r.l. in the District Court of Luxembourg seeking to collect a tariff on blank digital media sold by the Amazon.de retail website to customers located in Germany. In January 2013, a Belgian copyright collection society, AUVIBEL, filed a complaint against Amazon EU S.à r.l. in the Court of First Instance of Brussels, Belgium, seeking to collect a tariff on blank digital media sold by the Amazon.fr retail website to customers located in Belgium. In November 2013, the Belgian court ruled in favor of AUVIBEL and ordered us to report all sales of products to which the tariff potentially applies for a determination of damages. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters.

In December 2014, Smartflash LLC and Smartflash Technologies Limited filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com, LLC, AMZN Mobile, LLC, Amazon Web Services, Inc. and Audible, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Amazon Appstore, Amazon Instant Video, Amazon Music, Audible Audiobooks, the Amazon Mobile Ad Network, certain Kindle and Fire devices, Kindle e-bookstore, Amazon’s proprietary Android operating system, and the servers involved in operating Amazon Appstore, Amazon Instant Video, Amazon Music, the Fire TV app, Audible Audiobooks, Cloud Drive, Cloud Player, Amazon Web Services, and Amazon Mobile Ad Network infringe seven related U.S. Patents: Nos. 7,334,720; 7,942,317; 8,033,458; 8,061,598; 8,118,221; 8,336,772; and 8,794,516, all entitled “Data Storage and Access Systems.” The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, an injunction, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. In May 2015, the case was stayed until further notice. In March 2017, in an unrelated lawsuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit entered judgment invalidating all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,334,720; 8,118,221; and 8,336,772. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

In November 2015, Eolas Technologies, Inc. filed a complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the use of “interactive features” on www.amazon.com, including “search suggestions and search results,” infringes U.S. Patent No. 9,195,507, entitled “Distributed Hypermedia Method and System for Automatically Invoking External Application Providing Interaction and Display of Embedded Objects Within A Hypermedia Document.” The complaint sought a judgment of infringement together with costs and attorneys’ fees. In February 2016, Eolas filed an amended complaint seeking, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages. In February 2017, Eolas alleged in its damages report that in the event of a finding of liability Amazon could be subject to $130-$250 million in damages. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.

The outcomes of our legal proceedings and other contingencies are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to our operating results and cash flows for a particular period. In addition, for some matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, an estimate of the amount of loss or range of losses is not possible and we may be unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of non-monetary remedies.