Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

As of December 31, 2014, approximately $20.2 billion of unused credit was available to PayPal Credit accountholders. While this amount represents the total unused credit available, we have not experienced, and do not anticipate, that all of our PayPal Credit accountholders will access their entire available credit at any given point in time. In addition, the individual lines of credit that make up this unused credit are subject to periodic review and termination by the chartered financial institution that is the issuer of PayPal Credit products based on, among other things, account usage and customer creditworthiness. When a consumer makes a purchase using a PayPal Credit product, the chartered financial institution extends credit to the consumer, funds the extension of credit at the point of sale and advances funds to the merchant. We subsequently purchase the consumer receivables related to the consumer loans and as result of that purchase, bear the risk of loss in the event of loan defaults. However, we subsequently sell a participation interest in the entire pool of consumer loans to the chartered financial institution that extended the consumer loans. Although the chartered financial institution continues to own each customer account, we own and bear the risk of loss on the related consumer receivables, less the participation interest held by the chartered financial institution, and PayPal is responsible for all servicing functions related to the customer account balances. As of December 31, 2014, the total outstanding principal balance of this pool of consumer loans was $3.7 billion, of which the chartered financial institution owned a participation interest of $163 million, or 4.4% of the total outstanding balance of consumer receivables at that date.

In addition, in June 2014, we agreed, subject to certain conditions, that PayPal, one of its affiliates or a third party partner will purchase a portfolio of consumer loan receivables relating to the customer accounts arising out of our current credit program agreement with Synchrony (formerly GE Capital Retail Bank) for a price based on the book value of the consumer loan receivables portfolio at the time of the purchase (expected to be October 2016), subject to certain adjustments and exclusions. As of December 31, 2014, Synchrony had a net receivables portfolio under the credit program agreement of approximately $1.5 billion.

Lease Arrangements

We have lease obligations under certain non-cancelable operating leases. Future minimum rental payments under our non-cancelable operating leases at December 31, 2014 are as follows:



	Leases
	(In millions)
2015	$	113
2016	96
2017	83
2018	63
2019	42
Thereafter	52
Total minimum lease payments	$	449

Rent expense in the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 totaled $159 million, $152 million and $152 million, respectively.

Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings

Overview

We are involved in legal and regulatory proceedings on an ongoing basis. Many of these proceedings are in early stages and may seek an indeterminate amount of damages. If we believe that a loss arising from such matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we accrue the estimated liability in our financial statements. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue the low end of the range. For those proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, we have disclosed an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses or we have concluded that an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses arising directly from the proceeding (i.e., monetary damages or amounts paid in judgment or settlement) are not material. If we cannot estimate the probable or reasonably possible loss or range of losses arising from a legal proceeding, we have disclosed that fact. In assessing the materiality of a legal proceeding, we evaluate, among other factors, the amount of monetary damages claimed, as well as the potential impact of non-monetary remedies sought by plaintiffs (e.g., injunctive relief) that may require us to change our business practices in a manner that could have a material adverse impact on our business. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 11, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of such non-monetary remedies.

Amounts accrued for legal and regulatory proceedings for which we believe a loss is probable were not material for the year ended December 31, 2014. Except as otherwise noted for the proceedings described in this Note 11, we have concluded, based on currently available information, that reasonably possible losses arising directly from the proceedings (i.e., monetary damages or amounts paid in judgment or settlement) in excess of our recorded accruals are also not material. However, legal and regulatory proceedings are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. If one or more matters were resolved against us in a reporting period for amounts in excess of management’s expectations, the impact on our operating results or financial condition for that reporting period could be material.

Litigation

eBay's Korean subsidiary, IAC (which has merged into Gmarket and is now named eBay Korea), has notified its approximately 20 million users of a January 2008 data breach involving personally identifiable information including name, address, resident registration number and some transaction and refund data (but not including credit card information or real time banking information). Approximately 149,000 users sued IAC over this breach in several lawsuits in Korean courts and more may do so in the future (including after final determination of liability). Trial for a group of representative suits began in August 2009 in the Seoul Central District Court (SCDC), and trial for additional suits began later in the SCDC. There is some precedent in Korea for a court to grant “consolation money” for data breaches without a specific finding of harm from the breach. Such precedents have involved payments of up to approximately $200 per user. In January 2010, the SCDC ruled that IAC had met its obligations with respect to defending the website from intrusion and, accordingly, had no liability for the breach. This January 2010 ruling was appealed by approximately 34,000 plaintiffs to the Seoul High Court. In September 2012, the Seoul High Court announced its decision upholding the SCDC's January 2010 decision for three cases involving 55 plaintiffs. During 2013, the Seoul High Court upheld the SCDC's January 2010 ruling in another 18 cases involving 33,795 plaintiffs. The Seoul High Court's decision in 10 of these 18 cases has been appealed by 33,215 plaintiffs to the Korea Supreme Court, and the Korea Supreme Court is currently reviewing a total of 11 cases with 33,218 plaintiffs. In January 2013, the Seoul Western District Court ruled in favor of IAC with respect to two cases filed by 2,291 plaintiffs by following the SCDC's January 2010 ruling, and 2,284 plaintiffs proceeded to appeal this decision of the Seoul Western District Court to the Seoul High Court. We expect decisions in these cases in 2015.

eBay Inc., eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc., Pierre Omidyar and Joshua Silverman have been sued by craigslist, Inc. in California Superior Court in San Francisco (Case No.: CGC - 08 - 475276). craigslist filed suit on May 13, 2008 alleging that we engaged in conduct designed to harm craigslist's business while we negotiated to become and while we were a minority shareholder in craigslist. craigslist’s allegations include that we (i) misrepresented, concealed, suppressed and failed to disclose facts in order to induce craigslist to take detrimental action; (ii) interfered with craigslist's business operations; (iii) improperly disseminated and misused confidential and proprietary information from craigslist that we received as a minority investor; (iv) infringed and diluted craigslist's trademark and trade name; and (v) breached duties owed to craigslist. The complaint seeks significant compensatory and punitive damages, rescission and other relief. In addition, in September 2014, craigslist filed an amended complaint alleging trade secret misappropriation and seeking new and additional compensatory and punitive damages. The parties are currently engaged in discovery and a trial date has not yet been set.

Regulatory Proceedings

PayPal routinely reports to the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on payments it has rejected or blocked pursuant to OFAC sanctions regulations and on any possible violations of those regulations. PayPal has cooperated with OFAC in recent years regarding PayPal’s review process over transaction monitoring and has self-reported a large number of small dollar amount transactions that could possibly be in violation of OFAC sanctions regulations. Beginning in September 2014, we have engaged in settlement discussions with OFAC regarding the possible violations arising from PayPal’s practices between 2009 and 2013 as a result of which we have accrued reserves we believe are adequate to cover any findings of violation. In addition, PayPal continues to cooperate with OFAC regarding more recent self-reported transactions that could also possibly be in violation of OFAC sanctions regulations. Such self-reporting transactions could result in claims or actions against us including litigation, injunctions, damage awards or require us to change our business practices and could result in a material loss, require significant management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources or otherwise harm our business.

On August 7, 2013 and January 13, 2014, eBay, PayPal and its subsidiary, Bill Me Later, received Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) requesting that we provide testimony, produce documents and provide information relating primarily to the acquisition, management, and operation of the PayPal Credit products, including online credit products, advertising, loan origination, customer acquisition, servicing, debt collection, and complaints handling practices. The CIDs could lead to an enforcement action and/or one or more significant consent orders, which may result in substantial costs, including legal fees, fines, penalties and remediation expenses. We are cooperating with the CFPB in connection with the CIDs and exploring whether we may be able to resolve these inquiries. Resolution of these inquiries could require us to make monetary payments to certain customers, pay fines and/or change the manner in which we operate the PayPal Credit products, which could adversely affect our financial results and results of operations.

In May 2014, we publicly announced that criminals were able to penetrate our network and steal certain data, including user names, encrypted user passwords and other non-financial user data, from eBay’s Marketplaces business unit. Upon making this announcement, eBay Marketplaces required all buyers and sellers on the Marketplaces platform to reset their passwords in order to login to their account. In addition to making this public announcement, we proactively approached a number of regulatory and governmental bodies, including those with the most direct supervisory authority over our data privacy and data security programs, to specifically inform them of the incident and our actions to protect our customers in response. Certain of those regulatory agencies have requested us to provide further, more detailed information regarding the incident, and we believe that we have fully cooperated in all of those requests. To date, we have not been informed by any regulatory authority of an intention to bring any enforcement action arising from this incident; however, in the future we may be subject to fines or other regulatory action. In addition, in July 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us for alleged violations and harm resulting from the incident. We are vigorously defending the lawsuit.

General Matters

Other third parties have from time to time claimed, and others may claim in the future, that we have infringed their intellectual property rights. We are subject to patent disputes, and expect that we will increasingly be subject to additional patent infringement claims involving various aspects of our Marketplaces, Payments and Enterprise businesses as our products and services continue to expand in scope and complexity. Such claims may be brought directly or indirectly against our companies and/or against our customers (who may be entitled to contractual indemnification under their contracts with us), and we are subject to increased exposure to such claims as a result of our recent acquisitions, particularly in cases where we are entering into new lines of business in connection with such acquisitions. We have in the past been forced to litigate such claims. We may also become more vulnerable to third-party claims as laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Lanham Act and the Communications Decency Act are interpreted by the courts, and as we expand the scope of our businesses (both in terms of the range of products and services that we offer and our geographical operations) and become subject to laws in jurisdictions where the underlying laws with respect to the potential liability of online intermediaries like ourselves are either unclear or less favorable. We believe that additional lawsuits alleging that we have violated patent, copyright or trademark laws will be filed against us. Intellectual property claims, whether meritorious or not, are time consuming and costly to defend and resolve, could require expensive changes in our methods of doing business or could require us to enter into costly royalty or licensing agreements on unfavorable terms.

From time to time, we are involved in other disputes or regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of business, including suits by our users (individually or as class actions) alleging, among other things, improper disclosure of our prices, rules or policies, that our practices, prices, rules, policies or customer/user agreements violate applicable law or that we have acted unfairly and/or not acted in conformity with such prices, rules, policies or agreements. In addition to these types of disputes and regulatory inquiries, our operations are also subject to regulatory and/or legal review and/or challenges that tend to reflect the increasing global regulatory focus to which the payments industry is subject and, when taken as a whole with other regulatory and legislative action, such actions could result in the imposition of costly new compliance burdens on our Payments business and its customers and may lead to increased costs and decreased transaction volume and revenue. Further, the number and significance of these disputes and inquiries are increasing as our company has grown larger, our businesses have expanded in scope (both in terms of the range of products and services that we offer and our geographical operations) and our products and services have increased in complexity. Any claims or regulatory actions against us, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, damage awards (including statutory damages for certain causes of action in certain jurisdictions), injunctive relief or increased costs of doing business through adverse judgment or settlement, require us to change our business practices in expensive ways, require significant amounts of management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources or otherwise harm our business.

Indemnification Provisions

In the ordinary course of business, we have included limited indemnification provisions in certain of our agreements with parties with which we have commercial relations, including our standard marketing, promotions and application-programming-interface license agreements. Under these contracts, we generally indemnify, hold harmless and agree to reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with claims by a third party with respect to our domain names, trademarks, logos and other branding elements to the extent that such marks are applicable to our performance under the subject agreement. In certain cases, we have agreed to provide indemnification for intellectual property infringement. Our Enterprise business has provided in many of its major ecommerce agreements an indemnity for other types of third-party claims, which are indemnities mainly related to various intellectual property rights, and we have provided similar indemnities in a limited number of agreements for our other businesses, including our Magento business. In our PayPal business, we have provided an indemnity to our payment processors in the event of certain third-party claims or card association fines against the processor arising out of conduct by PayPal or PayPal customers. PayPal has also provided a limited indemnity to merchants using its retail point of sale payment services and to manufacturers of its point of sale devices (e.g., the PayPal Here devices and the Beacon device). In addition, Bill Me Later has provided indemnification provisions in its agreements with the chartered financial institutions that issue its credit products. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions due to our limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular provision. To date, losses recorded in our statement of income in connection with our indemnification provisions have not been significant, either individually or collectively.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of December 31, 2014, we had no off-balance sheet arrangements that have, or are reasonably likely to have, a current or future material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources.

We have various cash pooling arrangements with financial institutions for cash management purposes. These arrangements allow for cash withdrawals from each of these financial institutions based upon our aggregate operating cash balances held within the same financial institution (“Aggregate Cash Deposits”). These arrangements also allow us to withdraw amounts exceeding the Aggregate Cash Deposits up to an agreed-upon limit. The net balance of the withdrawals and the Aggregate Cash Deposits are used by the financial institution as a basis for calculating our net interest expense or income under these arrangements. As of December 31, 2014, we had a total of $7.2 billion in cash withdrawals offsetting our $7.2 billion in Aggregate Cash Deposits held within the same financial institution under these cash pooling arrangements.