Commitments, Contingencies and Other	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies, Contingencies and Other	Commitments, Contingencies and Other In the ordinary course of business, the Company is regularly subject to various claims, suits, regulatory inquiries and investigations. The Company records a liability for specific legal matters when it determines that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the loss can be reasonably estimated. Management has also identified certain other legal matters where they believe an unfavorable outcome is not probable and, therefore, no reserve is established. Although management currently believes that resolving claims against the Company, including claims where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible, will not have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. The Company also evaluates other contingent matters, including income and non-income tax contingencies, to assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and estimated extent of potential loss. It is possible that an unfavorable outcome of one or more of these lawsuits or other contingencies could have a material impact on the liquidity, results of operations, or financial condition of the Company. Guarantee As part of its divestiture of its activation exception handling business in 2016, the Company provided a guarantee to Goldman for $30.0 million of the $40.0 million in senior debt extended by Goldman to STIH which is referenced as the Third Party Note in Note 6 - Investments in Affiliates and Related Transactions. At March 31, 2017, STIH missed its minimum earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) target under the Goldman loan. As a result, of STIH’s covenant violation, in June 2017, the Company distributed approximately $6.2 million to Goldman as previously defined, the Distribution Note. The remaining amounts guaranteed under the arrangement were released upon assignment of certain customer contracts. Under the terms of the PIK note with STIH, distributed amounts made by the Company to Goldman are added to the amounts outstanding under the PIK note. As of September 30, 2017, the Company has no further obligations to guarantee the debt outstanding to Goldman. Legal Matters On October 7, 2014, the Company filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Civ Act. No. 3:14-cv-06220) against F-Secure Corporation and F-Secure, Inc. (collectively, “F-Secure”), claiming that F-Secure has infringed, and continues to infringe, several of the Company’s patents. In February 2015, the Company entered into a patent license and settlement agreement with F-Secure Corporation and F-Secure, Inc. whereby the Company granted each of these companies (but not their subsidiaries or affiliates) a limited license to our patents. As a result of entering into the patent license and settlement agreement, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the above complaint. On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Securities Law Action”). After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead plaintiff Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements of material information concerning the Company’s financial results, business operations, and prospects. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. On February 2, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, which remains pending. We believe that the asserted claims lack merit, and we intend to defend against all of the claims vigorously. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time, and we can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. On September 15, 2017, October 24, 2017, October 27, 2017 and October 30, 2017, Synchronoss shareholders filed derivative lawsuits against certain of the Company’s officers and directors and the Company (as nominal defendant) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Derivative Suits”). These lawsuits purport to allege claims related to breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The allegations in the Derivative Suits relate to substantially the same facts as those underlying the Securities Law Action described above. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and for the Company to take steps to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Suits in which service of the complaints was effectuated have agreed to stay proceedings pending the court’s decision on the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Securities Laws Action. The Company believes that the asserted claims lack merit, and we intend to defend against all of the claims vigorously. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the Derivative Suits at this time, and the Company can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Our 2011 acquisition agreement with Miyowa SA (“Miyowa”) provided that former shareholders of Miyowa would be eligible for earn-out payments to the extent specified business milestones were achieved following the acquisition. In December 2013, Eurowebfund and Bakamar, two former shareholders of Miyowa filed a complaint against the Company in the Commercial Court of Paris, France claiming that they are entitled to certain earn-out payments under the acquisition agreement. The Company was served with a copy of this complaint in January 2014. On December 3, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims in the complaint against the Company. On December 19, 2015, the former shareholders of Miyowa filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal of Paris, France, appealing the Court’s decision. On January 11, 2018, the Court of Appeal of Paris, France, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs have informed us that they will not be appealing this decision. On July 11, 2017, Shareholder Representative Services LLC, on behalf of the persons entitled to receive merger consideration (the “Sellers”) in connection with our acquisition of Razorsight, commenced arbitration against us with respect to a dispute over the amount due to the Sellers as additional consideration. Under the Razorsight purchase agreement, the Sellers are entitled to a percentage of any revenue recognized by us generated from the sale or licensing of Razorsight products in 2016 after a specific revenue threshold is obtained. The parties disagreed over the determination of the amount of revenue we recognized in 2016. The parties entered into an agreement resolving the arbitration in May 2018. Except as set forth above, the Company is not currently subject to any legal proceedings that could have a material adverse effect on its operations; however, it may from time to time become a party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of its business. The Company is currently the plaintiff in several patent infringement cases. The defendants in several of these cases have filed counterclaims. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of the cases at this time due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company continues to pursue its claims and believes that the counterclaims are without merit, and the Company intends to defend all of such counterclaims.

Commitments, Contingencies and Other

In the ordinary course of business, the Company is regularly subject to various claims, suits, regulatory inquiries and investigations. The Company records a liability for specific legal matters when it determines that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the loss can be reasonably estimated. Management has also identified certain other legal matters where they believe an unfavorable outcome is not probable and, therefore, no reserve is established. Although management currently believes that resolving claims against the Company, including claims where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible, will not have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. The Company also evaluates other contingent matters, including income and non-income tax contingencies, to assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and estimated extent of potential loss. It is possible that an unfavorable outcome of one or more of these lawsuits or other contingencies could have a material impact on the liquidity, results of operations, or financial condition of the Company.

Guarantee

As part of its divestiture of its activation exception handling business in 2016, the Company provided a guarantee to Goldman for $30.0 million of the $40.0 million in senior debt extended by Goldman to STIH which is referenced as the Third Party Note in Note 6 - Investments in Affiliates and Related Transactions. At March 31, 2017, STIH missed its minimum earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) target under the Goldman loan. As a result, of STIH’s covenant violation, in June 2017, the Company distributed approximately $6.2 million to Goldman as previously defined, the Distribution Note. The remaining amounts guaranteed under the arrangement were released upon assignment of certain customer contracts. Under the terms of the PIK note with STIH, distributed amounts made by the Company to Goldman are added to the amounts outstanding under the PIK note. As of September 30, 2017, the Company has no further obligations to guarantee the debt outstanding to Goldman.

Legal Matters

On October 7, 2014, the Company filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Civ Act. No. 3:14-cv-06220) against F-Secure Corporation and F-Secure, Inc. (collectively, “F-Secure”), claiming that F-Secure has infringed, and continues to infringe, several of the Company’s patents. In February 2015, the Company entered into a patent license and settlement agreement with F-Secure Corporation and F-Secure, Inc. whereby the Company granted each of these companies (but not their subsidiaries or affiliates) a limited license to our patents. As a result of entering into the patent license and settlement agreement, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the above complaint.

On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Securities Law Action”). After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead plaintiff Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements of material information concerning the Company’s financial results, business operations, and prospects. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. On February 2, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, which remains pending. We believe that the asserted claims lack merit, and we intend to defend against all of the claims vigorously. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time, and we can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

On September 15, 2017, October 24, 2017, October 27, 2017 and October 30, 2017, Synchronoss shareholders filed derivative lawsuits against certain of the Company’s officers and directors and the Company (as nominal defendant) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Derivative Suits”). These lawsuits purport to allege claims related to breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The allegations in the Derivative Suits relate to substantially the same facts as those underlying the Securities Law Action described above. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and for the Company to take steps to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Suits in which service of the complaints was effectuated have agreed to stay proceedings pending the court’s decision on the defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Securities Laws Action. The Company believes that the asserted claims lack merit, and we intend to defend against all of the claims vigorously. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the Derivative Suits at this time, and the Company can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Our 2011 acquisition agreement with Miyowa SA (“Miyowa”) provided that former shareholders of Miyowa would be eligible for earn-out payments to the extent specified business milestones were achieved following the acquisition. In December 2013, Eurowebfund and Bakamar, two former shareholders of Miyowa filed a complaint against the Company in the Commercial Court of Paris, France claiming that they are entitled to certain earn-out payments under the acquisition agreement. The Company was served with a copy of this complaint in January 2014. On December 3, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims in the complaint against the Company. On December 19, 2015, the former shareholders of Miyowa filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal of Paris, France, appealing the Court’s decision. On January 11, 2018, the Court of Appeal of Paris, France, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs have informed us that they will not be appealing this decision.

On July 11, 2017, Shareholder Representative Services LLC, on behalf of the persons entitled to receive merger consideration (the “Sellers”) in connection with our acquisition of Razorsight, commenced arbitration against us with respect to a dispute over the amount due to the Sellers as additional consideration. Under the Razorsight purchase agreement, the Sellers are entitled to a percentage of any revenue recognized by us generated from the sale or licensing of Razorsight products in 2016 after a specific revenue threshold is obtained. The parties disagreed over the determination of the amount of revenue we recognized in 2016. The parties entered into an agreement resolving the arbitration in May 2018.

Except as set forth above, the Company is not currently subject to any legal proceedings that could have a material adverse effect on its operations; however, it may from time to time become a party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of its business. The Company is currently the plaintiff in several patent infringement cases. The defendants in several of these cases have filed counterclaims. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of the cases at this time due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company continues to pursue its claims and believes that the counterclaims are without merit, and the Company intends to defend all of such counterclaims.