Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies
Note 3 -Commitments and Contingencies	Note 3. Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies We account for contingent liabilities in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. This guidance requires management to assess potential contingent liabilities that may exist as of the date of the financial statements to determine the probability and amount of loss that may have occurred, which inherently involves an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a material loss has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be estimated, then the estimated liability would be accrued in the financial statements. If the assessment indicates that a potential material loss contingency is not probable but is reasonably possible, or is probable but cannot be estimated, then the nature of the contingent liability, and an estimate of the range of possible losses, if determinable and material, would be disclosed. For loss contingencies considered remote, no accrual or disclosures are generally made. Legal matters Federal Trade Commission Consent Order. As previously disclosed, on December 20, 2016 the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a confidential Civil Investigative Demand, or CID, requiring us to produce certain documents and materials and to answer certain interrogatories relating to PC Healthcheck, an obsolete software program that we developed on behalf of a third party for their use with their customers. The investigation relates to us providing software like PC Healthcheck to third parties for their use prior to December 31, 2016, when we were under management of the previous Board and executive team. Since issuing the CID, the FTC has sought additional written and testimonial evidence. We have cooperated fully with the FTC’s investigation and provided all requested information. In addition, we have not used PC Healthcheck nor provided it to any customers since December 2016. On March 9, 2018, the FTC notified us that it was willing to engage in settlement discussions. On November 6, 2018, Support.com and the FTC entered into a proposed Stipulation to Entry of Order for Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment (the “Consent Order”). The Consent Order was approved by the Commission on March 26, 2019 and entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 29, 2019. Entry of the Consent Order by the Court resolved the FTC’s multi-year investigation of Support.com. Pursuant to the Consent Order, under which we neither admitted nor denied the FTC’s allegations (except as to the Court having jurisdiction over the matter), the FTC agreed to accept a payment of $10 million in settlement of the matter, subject to the factual accuracy of the information we provided as part of our financial representations. The $10 million payment was made on April 1, 2019 and was recognized in operating expenses within our consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2018. Additionally, pursuant to the Consent Order, we agreed to implement certain new procedures and enhance certain existing procedures. For example, the Consent Order necessitates that we cooperate with representatives of the Commission on associated investigations if needed; imposes requirements on Support.com regarding obtaining acknowledgements of the Consent Order and compliance certification, including record creation and maintenance; and prohibits us from making misrepresentations and misleading claims or providing the means for others to make such claims regarding, among other things, detection of security or performance issues on consumer’s Electronic Devices. Electronic Devices include, but are not limited to, cell phones, tablets and computers. We continue to monitor the impact of the Consent Order regularly. If we are unable to comply with the Consent Order, then this could result in a material and adverse impact to the results of operations and financial condition. Verizon Media. As previously disclosed, On March 22, 2010, the Company and AOL Fulfillment Services, who now does business as Verizon Media (“Verizon Media”), entered into a Fulfillment Services Promotion and Marketing Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement related to the development and sale of certain products and services. The Company sold software products to Verizon Media pursuant to the terms of the Agreement under two programs – SUPERAntiSpyware and Computer Check-Up. Verizon Media offered these software products to its end-customers. On May 24, 2019, the Company received a letter from Verizon Media providing notice that it wished to terminate the Agreement and work with the Company to wind-down all remaining subscriptions for both programs. The Company has wound-down all services under the Computer Check-Up program and the SUPERAntiSpyware program. In connection with the termination of the Computer Check-Up program, Verizon Media requested that the Company fund rebates to its end-customers who elect to accept a refund offer from Verizon Media. Although the Company, to date, has not agreed with this request, Verizon Media commenced its rebate program. On November 15, 2019, the Company received a letter from Verizon Media informing the Company that, to date, Verizon Media has issued rebates totaling $2.6 million and requesting reimbursement of this amount from the Company (the “Dispute”). Subsequently, the parties entered into negotiations toward a settlement of any potential claims, which culminated in the execution of a Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement dated September 29, 2020, pursuant to which the Company issued a one-time payment to Verizon Media in exchange for a full and complete release from any claims related to or arising out of the Dispute. The Company admitted no liability and incurred no financial impact from the settlement, as the payment was funded by the Company’s insurance carrier. Merger-Related Litigation. Since the announcement of the Merger Agreement, six lawsuits have been filed by alleged individual stockholders of the Company against the Company, the individual members of its Board of Directors and, in two of the cases, Greenidge and Merger Sub, in various U.S. federal district courts. A complete copy of each complaint has been filed as an exhibit to this quarterly report on Form 10-Q and is incorporated herein by reference. Of these six complaints, two have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware: Stein v. Support.com, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-00650-UNA, filed on May 5, 2021, and Bell v. Support.com, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-00672-UNA, filed on May 7, 2021. Three of the other lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: Broder v. Support.com, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-04262-UNA, filed on May 12, 2021; Salerno v. Support.com, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-04584, filed on May 21, 2021; and, Bowen v. Support.com, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-04797, filed on May 28, 2021. The remaining lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York: Steinmetz v. Support.com, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-02647-UNA, filed on May 11, 2021. The Company and the individual members of its board of directors are named as defendants in the Stein, Steinmetz, Broder, and Bowen complaints, and the Company, the individual members of its board of directors, Greenidge and Merger Sub are named as defendants in the Bell and Salerno complaints. The lawsuits generally allege that the Form S-4 Registration Statement of Greenidge filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Merger on May 4, 2021 is misleading and/or omits certain material information. In addition, one of the lawsuits (Salerno) also alleges that the members of the Company’s board breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement and that Greenidge and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Company directors’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. All six lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin the Merger, or, in the event that an injunction is not entered and the Merger closes, rescission of the Merger and unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The Company believes each of these lawsuits is meritless and intends to defend against them vigorously. On August 2, 2021, lawyers representing a seventh putative stockholder of the Company sent a demand letter seeking additional disclosures regarding the Merger and reserving their purported right to seek to enjoin the Merger. On August 4, 2021, counsel for the plaintiff in the Bowen action indicated orally to counsel for the Company that he anticipates dismissing his lawsuit as moot, in light of the Company’s supplemental disclosures, and seeking a mootness fee. On August 9, 2021, counsel for plaintiff Steinmetz voluntarily dismissed the Steinmetz action, and counsel for plaintiffs Stein and Bell indicated in a status report to the court that they expect to dismiss the Stein and Bell actions as moot following the stockholder vote on the Merger. The Company expects that these three plaintiffs likewise will seek mootness fees. Other Matters We have received and may in the future receive additional requests for information, including subpoenas, from other governmental agencies relating to the subject matter of the Consent Order and the Civil Investigative Demands described above. We intend to cooperate with these information requests and is not aware of any other legal proceedings against us by governmental authorities at this time. We are also subject to other routine legal proceedings, as well as demands, claims and threatened litigation, that arise in the normal course of business, potentially including assertions that we may be infringing patents or other intellectual property rights of others. We currently do not believe that the ultimate amount of liability, if any, for any pending claims of any type (alone or combined) will materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The ultimate outcome of any litigation is uncertain; however, any unfavorable outcomes could have a material negative impact on our financial condition and operating results. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense costs, negative publicity, diversion of management resources and other factors. Guarantees We have identified guarantees in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. This guidance stipulates that an entity must recognize an initial liability for the fair value, or market value, of the obligation it assumes under the guarantee at the time it issues such a guarantee and must disclose that information in our interim and annual financial statements. We have entered into various service level agreements with our partners, in which we may guarantee the maintenance of certain service level thresholds. Under some circumstances, if these thresholds are not met, we may be liable for certain financial costs. We evaluate costs for such guarantees under the provisions of ASC 450. We consider such factors as the degree of probability that we would be required to satisfy the liability associated with the guarantee and the ability to make a reasonable estimate of the resulting cost. During the three months ended June 30, 2021 and 2020, we did not incur any costs as a result of such obligations. We have not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in the condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Note 3. Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies

We account for contingent liabilities in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. This guidance requires management to assess potential contingent liabilities that may exist as of the date of the financial statements to determine the probability and amount of loss that may have occurred, which inherently involves an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a material loss has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be estimated, then the estimated liability would be accrued in the financial statements. If the assessment indicates that a potential material loss contingency is not probable but is reasonably possible, or is probable but cannot be estimated, then the nature of the contingent liability, and an estimate of the range of possible losses, if determinable and material, would be disclosed. For loss contingencies considered remote, no accrual or disclosures are generally made.

Legal matters

Federal Trade Commission Consent Order. As previously disclosed, on December 20, 2016 the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a confidential Civil Investigative Demand, or CID, requiring us to produce certain documents and materials and to answer certain interrogatories relating to PC Healthcheck, an obsolete software program that we developed on behalf of a third party for their use with their customers. The investigation relates to us providing software like PC Healthcheck to third parties for their use prior to December 31, 2016, when we were under management of the previous Board and executive team. Since issuing the CID, the FTC has sought additional written and testimonial evidence. We have cooperated fully with the FTC’s investigation and provided all requested information. In addition, we have not used PC Healthcheck nor provided it to any customers since December 2016.

On March 9, 2018, the FTC notified us that it was willing to engage in settlement discussions. On November 6, 2018, Support.com and the FTC entered into a proposed Stipulation to Entry of Order for Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment (the “Consent Order”). The Consent Order was approved by the Commission on March 26, 2019 and entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 29, 2019. Entry of the Consent Order by the Court resolved the FTC’s multi-year investigation of Support.com.

Pursuant to the Consent Order, under which we neither admitted nor denied the FTC’s allegations (except as to the Court having jurisdiction over the matter), the FTC agreed to accept a payment of $10 million in settlement of the matter, subject to the factual accuracy of the information we provided as part of our financial representations. The $10 million payment was made on April 1, 2019 and was recognized in operating expenses within our consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2018.

Additionally, pursuant to the Consent Order, we agreed to implement certain new procedures and enhance certain existing procedures. For example, the Consent Order necessitates that we cooperate with representatives of the Commission on associated investigations if needed; imposes requirements on Support.com regarding obtaining acknowledgements of the Consent Order and compliance certification, including record creation and maintenance; and prohibits us from making misrepresentations and misleading claims or providing the means for others to make such claims regarding, among other things, detection of security or performance issues on consumer’s Electronic Devices. Electronic Devices include, but are not limited to, cell phones, tablets and computers. We continue to monitor the impact of the Consent Order regularly. If we are unable to comply with the Consent Order, then this could result in a material and adverse impact to the results of operations and financial condition.

Verizon Media. As previously disclosed, On March 22, 2010, the Company and AOL Fulfillment Services, who now does business as Verizon Media (“Verizon Media”), entered into a Fulfillment Services Promotion and Marketing Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement related to the development and sale of certain products and services. The Company sold software products to Verizon Media pursuant to the terms of the Agreement under two programs – SUPERAntiSpyware and Computer Check-Up. Verizon Media offered these software products to its end-customers. On May 24, 2019, the Company received a letter from Verizon Media providing notice that it wished to terminate the Agreement and work with the Company to wind-down all remaining subscriptions for both programs. The Company has wound-down all services under the Computer Check-Up program and the SUPERAntiSpyware program. In connection with the termination of the Computer Check-Up program, Verizon Media requested that the Company fund rebates to its end-customers who elect to accept a refund offer from Verizon Media. Although the Company, to date, has not agreed with this request, Verizon Media commenced its rebate program.

On November 15, 2019, the Company received a letter from Verizon Media informing the Company that, to date, Verizon Media has issued rebates totaling $2.6 million and requesting reimbursement of this amount from the Company (the “Dispute”). Subsequently, the parties entered into negotiations toward a settlement of any potential claims, which culminated in the execution of a Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement dated September 29, 2020, pursuant to which the Company issued a one-time payment to Verizon Media in exchange for a full and complete release from any claims related to or arising out of the Dispute. The Company admitted no liability and incurred no financial impact from the settlement, as the payment was funded by the Company’s insurance carrier.

Merger-Related Litigation. Since the announcement of the Merger Agreement, six lawsuits have been filed by alleged individual stockholders of the Company against the Company, the individual members of its Board of Directors and, in two of the cases, Greenidge and Merger Sub, in various U.S. federal district courts. A complete copy of each complaint has been filed as an exhibit to this quarterly report on Form 10-Q and is incorporated herein by reference. Of these six complaints, two have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware: Stein v. Support.com, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-00650-UNA, filed on May 5, 2021, and Bell v. Support.com, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-00672-UNA, filed on May 7, 2021. Three of the other lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: Broder v. Support.com, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-04262-UNA, filed on May 12, 2021; Salerno v. Support.com, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-04584, filed on May 21, 2021; and, Bowen v. Support.com, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-04797, filed on May 28, 2021. The remaining lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York: Steinmetz v. Support.com, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-02647-UNA, filed on May 11, 2021. The Company and the individual members of its board of directors are named as defendants in the Stein, Steinmetz, Broder, and Bowen complaints, and the Company, the individual members of its board of directors, Greenidge and Merger Sub are named as defendants in the Bell and Salerno complaints.

The lawsuits generally allege that the Form S-4 Registration Statement of Greenidge filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Merger on May 4, 2021 is misleading and/or omits certain material information. In addition, one of the lawsuits (Salerno) also alleges that the members of the Company’s board breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement and that Greenidge and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Company directors’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. All six lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin the Merger, or, in the event that an injunction is not entered and the Merger closes, rescission of the Merger and unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The Company believes each of these lawsuits is meritless and intends to defend against them vigorously.

On August 2, 2021, lawyers representing a seventh putative stockholder of the Company sent a demand letter seeking additional disclosures regarding the Merger and reserving their purported right to seek to enjoin the Merger.

On August 4, 2021, counsel for the plaintiff in the Bowen action indicated orally to counsel for the Company that he anticipates dismissing his lawsuit as moot, in light of the Company’s supplemental disclosures, and seeking a mootness fee.

On August 9, 2021, counsel for plaintiff Steinmetz voluntarily dismissed the Steinmetz action, and counsel for plaintiffs Stein and Bell indicated in a status report to the court that they expect to dismiss the Stein and Bell actions as moot following the stockholder vote on the Merger. The Company expects that these three plaintiffs likewise will seek mootness fees.

Other Matters

We have received and may in the future receive additional requests for information, including subpoenas, from other governmental agencies relating to the subject matter of the Consent Order and the Civil Investigative Demands described above. We intend to cooperate with these information requests and is not aware of any other legal proceedings against us by governmental authorities at this time.

We are also subject to other routine legal proceedings, as well as demands, claims and threatened litigation, that arise in the normal course of business, potentially including assertions that we may be infringing patents or other intellectual property rights of others. We currently do not believe that the ultimate amount of liability, if any, for any pending claims of any type (alone or combined) will materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The ultimate outcome of any litigation is uncertain; however, any unfavorable outcomes could have a material negative impact on our financial condition and operating results. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense costs, negative publicity, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Guarantees

We have identified guarantees in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. This guidance stipulates that an entity must recognize an initial liability for the fair value, or market value, of the obligation it assumes under the guarantee at the time it issues such a guarantee and must disclose that information in our interim and annual financial statements. We have entered into various service level agreements with our partners, in which we may guarantee the maintenance of certain service level thresholds. Under some circumstances, if these thresholds are not met, we may be liable for certain financial costs. We evaluate costs for such guarantees under the provisions of ASC 450. We consider such factors as the degree of probability that we would be required to satisfy the liability associated with the guarantee and the ability to make a reasonable estimate of the resulting cost. During the three months ended June 30, 2021 and 2020, we did not incur any costs as a result of such obligations. We have not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in the condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020.