Contingencies (Notes)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Contingencies

Contingencies

In August 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter, Matthew Sciabacucchi, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of a putative class of Charter stockholders, challenging the transactions involving Charter, TWC, A/N, and Liberty Broadband announced by Charter on May 26, 2015. The lawsuit, which named as defendants Charter and its board of directors, alleged that the transactions resulted from breaches of fiduciary duty by Charter’s directors and that Liberty Broadband improperly benefited from the challenged transactions at the expense of other Charter stockholders. Charter denies any liability, believes that it has substantial defenses, and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. Although Charter is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit, it does not expect the outcome will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition or cash flows.

The California Attorney General and the Alameda County, California District Attorney are investigating whether certain of Charter’s waste disposal policies, procedures and practices are in violation of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Health and Safety Code. That investigation was commenced in January 2014. A similar investigation involving TWC was initiated in February 2012. Charter is cooperating with these investigations. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these investigations, it does not expect that the outcome will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

Sprint filed a patent suit against Charter and Bright House on December 2, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. This suit alleges infringement of 9 patents related to the Company's provision of Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) services. Sprint previously sued TWC with respect to eight of these patents and obtained a final judgment of $151 million inclusive of interest and costs, which the Company paid in November 2019. The Company has also brought a patent suit against Sprint (TC Tech, LLC v. Sprint) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware implicating Sprint's LTE technology and a similar suit against T-Mobile in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Sprint filed a subsequent patent suit against Charter on May 17, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This suit alleges infringement of two patents related to the Company's video on demand services. The court transferred this case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on December 20, 2018 pursuant to an agreement between the parties.

On February 18, 2020, Sprint filed a lawsuit against Charter, Bright House and TWC. Sprint alleges that Charter misappropriated trade secrets from Sprint years ago through employees hired by Bright House. Sprint asserts that the alleged trade secrets relate to the VoIP business of Charter, TWC and Bright House. The case is now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

Charter, T-Mobile and Sprint have tentatively reached a settlement of all of the foregoing suits that would result in a payment of $220 million by Charter to T-Mobile. The Company can give no assurance that this tentative settlement will be finalized. Pending finalization of the settlement and in the event the settlement is not finalized, the Company will vigorously defend these Sprint suits and prosecute the suits it has brought against T-Mobile and Sprint. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, it does not expect that the litigation will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

In addition to the Sprint litigation described above, the Company is a defendant or co-defendant in several additional lawsuits involving alleged infringement of various intellectual property relating to various aspects of its businesses. Other industry participants are also defendants in certain of these cases or related cases. In the event that a court ultimately determines that the Company infringes on any intellectual property, the Company may be subject to substantial damages and/or an injunction that could require the Company or its vendors to modify certain products and services the Company offers to its subscribers, as well as negotiate royalty or license agreements with respect to the intellectual property at issue. While the Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously, no assurance can be given that any adverse outcome would not be material to the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. The Company cannot predict the outcome of any such claims nor can it reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

The Company is party to other lawsuits, claims and regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of conducting its business. The ultimate outcome of these other legal matters pending against the Company cannot be predicted, and although such lawsuits and claims are not expected individually to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity, such lawsuits could have, in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Whether or not the Company ultimately prevails in any particular lawsuit or claim, litigation can be time consuming and costly and injure the Company’s reputation.