Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Future Commitments

During the first quarter of 2023, the Company finalized certain vendor contracts that were being negotiated at December 31, 2022. As of September 30, 2023, the Company's future minimum payments under non-cancelable contracts in excess of one year consist of the following (dollars in thousands):


	Non-Cancelable Contracts
2023	$	32,062
2024	120,554
2025	101,475
2026	43,418
2027	10,500
Thereafter	—
Total	$	308,009

As of September 30, 2023, the Company believes that it will meet all such minimum obligations.

Legal Proceedings

We have been, and expect in the future to be, a party to various legal proceedings, arbitrations, investigations or claims. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, we record accruals for certain of our outstanding legal proceedings when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate, at least on a quarterly basis, developments in our legal proceedings or other claims that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as any developments that would result in a loss contingency to become both probable and reasonably estimable. When a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, we do not record a loss accrual.

If the loss (or an additional loss in excess of any prior accrual) is reasonably possible and material, we disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate can be made. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, involves a series of judgments about future events, which are often complex. Even if a loss is reasonably possible, we may not be able to estimate a range of possible loss, particularly where (i) the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, (iii) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories or a large number of parties, or (iv) various factors outside of our control could lead to vastly different outcomes. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including the amount of any possible loss.

In August 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in two separate putative class action lawsuits relating to its use and public performance of certain sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972 (the "Pre-1972 Recordings"). The first suit, ABS Entertainment, Inc., et. al. v. Cumulus Media Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and alleged, among other things, copyright infringement under California state law, common law conversion, misappropriation and unfair business practices. On December 11, 2015, this suit was dismissed without prejudice. The second suit, ABS Entertainment, Inc. v. Cumulus Media Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and claimed, among other things, common law copyright infringement and unfair competition. The New York lawsuit was stayed pending an appeal before the Second Circuit involving unrelated third parties over whether the owner of a Pre-1972 Recording holds an exclusive right to publicly perform that recording under New York common law. On December 20, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals held that New York common law does not recognize a right of public performance for owners of pre-1972 Recordings. As a result of that case (to which Cumulus Media Inc. was not a party) the New York case against Cumulus Media Inc., was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs on April 3, 2017. On October 11, 2018, President Trump signed the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (the "Music Modernization Act") into law, which, among other things, provides new federal rights going forward for owners of pre-1972 Recordings. The question of whether public performance rights existed for Pre-1972 recordings under state law prior to the enactment of the new Music Modernization Act was, until recently, still being litigated by other parties in California. On August 23, 2021, the Ninth Circuit held in the matter of Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No. 17-55844, that no such public performance right exists under California law. But those plaintiffs continue to litigate a separate case, Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, LLC, which is pending in the Central District of California (2:14-cv-07648-PSG-GJS). Pandora attempted to dismiss the lawsuit under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, claiming that its broadcast of Pre-1972 recordings constituted speech on an issue of public interest and that Flo & Eddie’s claims have no merit. The district court denied the motion on the ground that the anti-SLAPP statute did not cover

Pandora’s conduct, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial (No. 20-56134). Following the Ninth Circuit’s direction to consider expedited motion practice on the legal validity of Flo & Eddie’s claims given the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Sirius XM Radio case, the district court set a schedule for Pandora to file a motion for summary judgment, which was filed and briefed. The motion was granted on July 25, 2023 in Pandora’s favor. The district court found that there is an absence of a public performance right owned by plaintiff. A notice of appeal was filed by plaintiff on August 25, 2023, and the appeal remains pending. The Company is not a party to that case and is not yet able to determine what effect that proceeding will have, if any, on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On February 24, 2020, two individual plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the "District Court") alleging claims regarding the Cumulus Media Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The case alleges that the Company breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in the oversight of the Plan, principally by selecting and retaining certain investment options despite their higher fees and costs than other available investment options, causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees, and by failing to monitor other fiduciaries. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of Plan participants from February 24, 2014 through the date of any judgment (the "Class Period"). On May 28, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 17, 2020, the District Court entered an order dismissing one of the individual plaintiffs and all claims against the Company except those that arose on or after February 24, 2019 (i.e., one year prior to the filing of the Complaint). On March 24, 2021, the Company filed a motion seeking dismissal of all remaining claims. On October 15, 2021, the District Court entered an order granting the Company’s motion and dismissing all remaining claims. On November 12, 2021, one of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. While the appeal was pending, the parties agreed to a settlement, that if granted final approval, will resolve all of the claims against the Company on a class-wide basis for the entire Class Period, and will provide the Company a general release. On February 16, 2023, the District Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement. On July 10, 2023, the Court held a fairness hearing and on July 11, 2023, the Court issued an order granting final approval to the settlement. All applicable appeal deadlines have expired and the Court’s order approving the settlement is now final. The Company has made a settlement payment for which the Company was indemnified by one of its insurance carriers.