Note 7—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

We have entered into non-cancellable operating, capital and financing leases for equipment and office, fulfillment center, and data center facilities. Rental expense under operating lease agreements was $362 million, $225 million, and $171 million for 2011, 2010, and 2009.

The following summarizes our principal contractual commitments, excluding open orders for inventory purchases that support normal operations, as of December 31, 2011:


	Year Ended December 31,
	2012		2013		2014		2015		2016		Thereafter		Total
	(in millions)
Operating and capital commitments:
Debt principal and interest	$	147	$	265	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	412
Capital leases, including interest		397		316		150		58		29		74		1,024
Financing lease obligations, including interest (1)		49		51		54		55		56		598		863
Operating leases		380		420		407		354		300		1,232		3,093
Unconditional purchase obligations		117		84		66		48		23		—		338
Other commitments (2) (3) (4)		325		127		72		66		61		664		1,315

Total commitments	$	1,415	$	1,263	$	749	$	581	$	469	$	2,568	$	7,045

(1)	Relates to the 1,370,000 square feet of occupied corporate office space under build-to-suit lease arrangements.

(2)	Includes contractual obligations with minimum firm commitments recorded as liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.

(3)

Includes the estimated timing and payments for rent, operating expenses, and tenant improvements associated with approximately 330,000 square feet of corporate office space currently being developed under build-to-suit leases and which we anticipate occupying in 2012 to 2013. The amount of space available and our financial and other obligations under the lease agreements are affected by various factors, including government approvals and permits, interest rates, development costs and other expenses and our exercise of certain rights under the lease agreements. See “Note 3—Fixed Assets” for a discussion of these leases.

(4)	Excludes $229 million of tax contingencies for which we cannot make a reasonably reliable estimate of the amount and period of payment, if any.

Pledged Securities

We have pledged or otherwise restricted $156 million and $160 million in 2011 and 2010 of our cash and marketable securities as collateral for standby and trade letters of credit, guarantees, debt related to our international operations, as well as real estate leases. We classify cash and marketable securities with use restrictions of twelve months or longer as non-current “Other assets” on our consolidated balance sheets.

Inventory Suppliers

During 2011, no vendor accounted for 10% or more of our inventory purchases. We generally do not have long-term contracts or arrangements with our vendors to guarantee the availability of merchandise, particular payment terms, or the extension of credit limits.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved from time to time in claims, proceedings and litigation, including the following:

In June 2001, Audible, Inc., our subsidiary acquired in March 2008, was named as a defendant in a securities class-action filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to its initial public offering in July 1999. The lawsuit also named certain of the offering’s underwriters, as well as Audible’s officers and directors as defendants. Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New York. The complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration statement for Audible’s offering failed to disclose that the underwriters allegedly solicited and received “excessive” commissions from investors and that some investors allegedly agreed with the underwriters to buy additional shares in the aftermarket in order to inflate the price of Audible’s stock. Audible and its officers and directors were named in the suits pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and other related provisions. The complaints seek unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs. In March 2009, all parties, including Audible, reached a settlement of these class actions that would resolve this dispute entirely with no payment required from Audible. The settlement was approved by the Court in October 2009, and subsequently upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the appeal of the last remaining objector to the settlement was dismissed in January 2012.

Beginning in March 2003, we were served with complaints filed in several different states, including Illinois, by a private litigant, Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C., purportedly on behalf of the state governments under various state False Claims Acts. The complaints allege that we (along with other companies with which we have commercial agreements) wrongfully failed to collect and remit sales and use taxes for sales of personal property to customers in those states and knowingly created records and statements falsely stating we were not required to collect or remit such taxes. In December 2006, we learned that one additional complaint was filed in the state of Illinois by a different private litigant, Matthew T. Hurst, alleging similar violations of the Illinois state law. All of the complaints seek injunctive relief, unpaid taxes, interest, attorneys’ fees, civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, and treble or punitive damages under the various state False Claims Acts. It is possible that we have been or will be named in similar cases in other states as well. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing in these complaints and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters.

In November 2007, an Austrian copyright collection society, Austro-Mechana, filed lawsuits against several Amazon.com EU subsidiaries 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.

In March 2009, Discovery Communications, Inc. filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged that our Kindle e-reader infringed a patent owned by Discovery purporting to cover an “Electronic Book Security and Copyright Protection System” (U.S. Patent No. 7,298,851) and sought monetary damages, a continuing royalty sufficient to compensate Discovery for any future infringement, treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. In May 2009, we filed counterclaims and an additional lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against Discovery alleging infringement of several patents owned by Amazon and requesting a declaration that several Discovery patents, including the one listed above, are invalid and unenforceable. In November 2011, we entered into a settlement of the litigation that included, among other things, a payment to the plaintiff and a non-exclusive patent cross-license agreement. The settlement was not material to either the current or future years.

In April 2009, Parallel Networks, LLC filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our website technology infringes a patent owned by Parallel Networks purporting to cover a “Method And Apparatus For Client-Server Communication Using a Limited Capability Client Over A Low-Speed Communications Link” (U.S. Patent No. 6,446,111) and seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice in February 2010, but the plaintiff filed a new complaint against us the following month containing similar allegations. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter. In December 2011 the Court granted Amazon’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims against Amazon with prejudice. The plaintiff is appealing that decision.

In May 2009, Big Baboon, Inc. filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our third-party selling and payments technology infringes a patent owned by Big Baboon, Inc. purporting to cover an “Integrated Business-to-Business Web Commerce and Business Automation System” (U.S. Patent No. 6,115,690) and seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. In February 2011, the Court entered an order staying the lawsuit pending the outcome of the Patent and Trademark Office’s re-examination of the patent in suit. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In September 2009, SpeedTrack, Inc. filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our website technology infringes a patent owned by SpeedTrack purporting to cover a “Method For Accessing Computer Files and Data, Using Linked Categories Assigned to Each Data File Record on Entry of the Data File Record” (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,544,360) and seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, enhanced damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. In November 2009, the Court entered an order staying the lawsuit pending the outcome of the Patent and Trademark Office’s re-examination of the patent in suit and the resolution of similar litigation against another party. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In October 2009, Eolas Technologies Incorporated filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our website technology infringes two patents owned by Eolas purporting to cover “Distributed Hypermedia Method for Automatically Invoking External Application Providing Interaction and Display of Embedded Objects within a Hypermedia Document” (U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906) and “Distributed Hypermedia Method and System for Automatically Invoking External Application Providing Interaction and Display of Embedded Objects within a Hypermedia Document” (U.S. Patent No. 7,599,985) and seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. In July 2011, Eolas’s damages expert opined that, if we are found to infringe the patents-in-suit and the patents are found to be valid (both of which we dispute), Amazon and its affiliates should pay damages of approximately $135 million. Amazon’s damages expert has opined that, under the same circumstances, the maximum damages fairly recoverable against Amazon and its affiliates would be $1.2 million. Eolas’s damages could be trebled if Eolas prevails in its claim that any infringement was willful. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In December 2009, Nazomi Communications, Inc. filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the processor core in our Kindle e-reader infringes two patents owned by Nazomi purporting to cover “Java virtual machine hardware for RISC and CISC processors” and “Java hardware accelerator using microcode engine” (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,080,362 and 7,225,436) and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. In January 2012, Nazomi added Amazon to a second lawsuit, which alleges, among other things, that the Kindle Fire infringes a patent owned by Nazomi purporting to cover a “Constant Pool Reference Resolution Method” (U.S. Patent No. 6,338,160) also seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In May 2010, Site Update Solutions LLC filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our website technology infringes a patent owned by Site Update purporting to cover a “Process for Maintaining Ongoing Registration for Pages on a Given Search Engine” (U.S. Patent No. RE40,683) and seeks monetary damages, a future royalty, costs and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In July 2010, Positive Technologies Inc. filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of our products, including our Kindle e-reader, infringe three patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “DC Integrating Display Driver Employing Pixel Status Memories” (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,444,457; 5,627,558 and 5,831,588) and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In July 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) staff informed us that it was considering whether to recommend enforcement proceedings against us for advertising and selling certain textile fiber products as “bamboo” when they are made of rayon manufactured from bamboo, in violation of the Textile Fiber Product Identification Act, the FTC Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. We do not believe we have violated these laws and regulations and are cooperating voluntarily with the Commission’s inquiry. In September 2011, we learned that the Commission voted to refer the matter to the Department of Justice for enforcement proceedings.

In September 2010, Olympic Developments AG, LLC filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain aspects of our technology, including our Kindle e-reader, infringe two patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Transactional Processing System” (U.S. Patent No. 5,475,585) and a “Device for Controlling Remote Interactive Receiver” (U.S. Patent No. 6,246,400B1) and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In November 2010, Kelora Systems, LLC filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The complaint alleges that our website infringes a patent owned by Kelora Systems purporting to cover a “Method and system for executing a guided parametric search” (U.S. Patent No. 6,275,821) and seeks monetary damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. In August 2011, Kelora filed an amended complaint adding Amazon subsidiaries Audible and Zappos as defendants. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In December 2010, Global Sessions LP filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain Amazon and AWS technologies infringe four patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “System And Method For Maintaining A State For A User Session Using A Web System Having A Global Session Server” (U.S. Patent No. 6,076,108), an “Enterprise Interaction Hub For Managing An Enterprise Web System” (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,085,220 and 6,360,249), and a “System And Method For Maintaining A State For A User Session Using A Web System” (U.S. Patent No. 6,480,894), and seeks monetary damages, a future royalty, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In December 2010, Technology Innovations, LLC filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Amazon’s sale of e-books and Kindle e-readers infringes a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Device For Including Enhancing Information With Printed Information And Method For Electronic Searching Thereof” (U.S. Patent No. 5,517,407) and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice in August 2011, but the plaintiff filed a new complaint against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware containing similar allegations and alleging infringement of an additional patent purporting to cover an “Apparatus for the Display of Embedded Information” (U.S. Patent No. 7,429,965). We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In February 2011, SFA Systems, LLC, filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that by using computer-implemented systems and methods for personalization Amazon and Zappos infringe a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover an “Integrated Computerized Sales Force Automation System” (U.S. Patent No. 6,067,525), and seeks monetary damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. In August 2011, the plaintiff filed an additional complaint against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging, among other things, that certain supply chain, sales, marketing, and inventory systems and methods used by Amazon and Zappos infringe a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Sales Force Automation System and Method” (U.S. Patent No. 7,941,341), and seeking monetary damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In April 2011, Walker Digital LLC filed six complaints against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints allege that we infringe several of the plaintiff’s U.S. patents by, among other things, providing “cross benefits” to customers through our promotions, (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,831,470 and 7,827,056), using a customer’s identified original product to offer a substitute product (U.S. Patent No. 7,236,942), offering products and services from retailers at discounted prices and arranging for users to buy them from merchants (U.S. Patent No. 6,249,772), using our product recommendations and personalization features to offer complementary products together (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,601,036 and 6,138,105), enabling customers to subscribe to a delivery schedule for products they routinely use at reduced prices (U.S. Patent No. 5,970,470), and offering personalized advertising based on customers’ preferences identified using a data pattern (U.S. Patent No. 7,933,893). A seventh complaint, filed in the same court in October 2011, alleges that we infringe plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. 8,041,711 by offering personalized advertising based on customer preferences that associate data with resource locators. The complaints seek monetary damages, interest, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters. In June 2011, the complaint alleging that we infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,249,772 was dismissed.

In July 2011, GPNE Corp. filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain aspects of our technology, including our Kindle e-reader, infringe three patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Network Communication System Wherein a Node Obtains Resources for Transmitting Data by Transmitting Two Reservation Requests” (U.S. Patent No. 7,555,267), a “Communication System Wherein a Clocking Signal from a Controller, a Request from a Node, Acknowledgement of the Request, and Data Transferred from the Node are all Provided on Different Frequencies, Enabling Simultaneous Transmission of these Signals” (U.S. Patent No. 7,570,954) and a “Network Communication System with an Alignment Signal to Allow a Controller to Provide Messages to Nodes and Transmission of the Messages over Four Independent Frequencies” (U.S. Patent No. 7,792,492) and seeks monetary damages, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In September 2011, Parallel Iron, LLC, filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain AWS file storage systems that include a Hadoop Distributed File System infringe a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover “Methods and Systems for a Storage System With a Program-Controlled Switch for Routing Data” (U.S. Patent No. 7,415,565), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In September 2011, Lochner Technologies, LLC, filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that by offering products used for desktop virtualization or cloud computing solutions that provide virtual desktop environments Amazon infringes a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Modular Computer System” (U.S. Patent No. 7,035,598), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In September 2011, Semiconductor Ideas to the Market BV filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that by offering products including our Kindle e-reader that employ receiver technology designed to diminish signal leakage Amazon infringes two patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Receiver Comprising A Digitally Controlled Capacitor Bank” (U.S. Patent No. 7,299,018) and a “Communication Device” (U.S. Patent No. 7,072,614), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In September 2011, Droplets, Inc. filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that by offering web applications and software Amazon infringes two patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “System and Method for Delivering a Graphical User Interface of Remote Applications Over a Thin Client” (U.S. Patent No. 6,687,745) and a “System and Method for Delivering Remotely Stored Graphics and Information” (U.S. Patent No. 7,502,838), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In September 2011, Execware, LLC filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges, among other things, that by rapidly formatting and reformatting tabular displays of records, such as product listings on our websites, Amazon infringes a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover an “Integrated Dialog Box for Rapidly Altering Presentation of Parametric Text Data Objects on a Computer Display” (U.S. Patent No. 6,216,139), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In September 2011, Select Retrieval, Inc. filed complaints against us and one of our subsidiaries for patent infringement in the United States District Courts for the District of Oregon and the District of Delaware. The complaints allege, among other things, that certain aspects of our websites’ technology infringe a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover “Data Display Software with Actions and Links Integrated with Information” (U.S. Patent No. 6,128,617), and seek monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. In December 2011, the plaintiff dismissed all claims against us with prejudice.

In September 2011, LVL Patent Group, LLC filed three complaints against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints allege, among other things, that certain aspects of our technology, including our mobile applications, infringe four patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Telephone/Transaction Entry Device and System for Entering Transaction Data into Databases (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,805,676; 5,987,103; and 8,019,060) and a “Data Transaction Assembly Server” (U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

In October 2011, Smartphone Technologies LLC filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain aspects of our Kindle devices infringe five patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Power-Conserving Intuitive Device Discovery Technique In A Bluetooth Environment” (U.S. Patent No. 6,950,645); a “Handheld Computer System That Attempts To Establish An Alternative Network Link Upon Failing To Establish A Requested Network Link” (U.S. Patent No. 7,506,064); a “Method And Apparatus For Communicating Information Over Low Bandwidth Communications Networks” (U.S. Patent No. RE 40,459); a “Method For Controlling A Handheld Computer By Entering Commands Onto A Displayed Feature Of The Handheld Computer” (U.S. Patent No. 6,956,562); and a “System and Method For Displaying And Manipulating Multiple Calendars On A Personal Digital Assistant” (U.S. Patent No. 6,466,236). In December 2011, we entered into a settlement of the litigation that included, among other things, a payment to the plaintiff and a non-exclusive patent license agreement. The settlement was not material to either the current or future years.

We cannot predict the impact (if any) that any of the matters described above may have on our business, results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. Because of the inherent uncertainties of such matters, including the early stage and lack of specific damage claims in many of them, we cannot estimate the range of possible losses from them (except as otherwise indicated).

Other Contingencies

In September 2010, the State of Texas issued an assessment of $269 million for uncollected sales taxes for the period from December 2005 to December 2009, including interest and penalties through the date of the assessment. The State of Texas is alleging that we should have collected sales taxes on applicable sales transactions during those years. We believe that the State of Texas did not provide a sufficient basis for its assessment and that the assessment is without merit. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter. In March 2011, the SEC staff notified us of an inquiry concerning this assessment. We cooperated with the staff’s inquiry, and in November 2011 the staff notified us that it had completed its inquiry.

In November 2011, the State of Arizona issued assessments on behalf of the State and certain cities in the amount of approximately $53 million, including tax and interest, for uncollected tax for the periods March 1, 2006 through December 31, 2010. The State of Arizona is alleging that we should have collected a transaction tax that is similar to a sales tax on applicable transactions during those years. We believe that the assessment is without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

Depending on the amount and the timing, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could materially affect our business, results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.