CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES Overview LendingTree is involved in legal proceedings on an ongoing basis. In assessing the materiality of a legal proceeding, the Company evaluates, 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 it to change its business practices in a manner that could have a material and adverse impact on the business. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 11, unless otherwise indicated, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of such non-monetary remedies. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company has a litigation settlement accrual of $2.8 million and $0.5 million, respectively. The litigation settlement accrual relates to litigation matters that were either settled or a firm offer for settlement was extended, thereby establishing an accrual amount that is both probable and reasonably estimable. Intellectual Property Litigation Zillow LendingTree v. Zillow, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-439. On September 8, 2010, the Company filed an action for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against Zillow, Inc., Nextag, Inc., Quinstreet, Inc., Quinstreet Media, Inc. and Adchemy, Inc. The complaint was amended to include Leadpoint, Inc. d/b/a Securerights on September 24, 2010. The complaint alleged that each of the defendants infringe one or both of the Company's patents—U.S. Patent No. 6,385,594, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet," and U.S. Patent No. 6,611,816, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet." The defendants in this action asserted various defenses and counterclaims against the Company, including the assertion by certain of the defendants of counterclaims alleging illegal monopolization via the Company's maintenance of the asserted patents. Defendant NexTag asserted defenses of laches and equitable estoppel. In July 2011, the Company reached a settlement agreement with Leadpoint, Inc., pursuant to which all claims against Leadpoint, Inc. and all counter-claims against the Company by Leadpoint, Inc. were dismissed. In November 2012, the Company reached a settlement agreement with Quinstreet, Inc. and Quinstreet Media, Inc. (collectively, the "Quinstreet Parties"), pursuant to which all claims against the Quinstreet Parties and all counterclaims against the Company by the Quinstreet Parties were dismissed. After an unsuccessful attempt to reach settlement through mediation with the remaining parties, this matter went to trial beginning in February 2014, and on March 12, 2014, the jury returned a verdict. The jury found that the defendants Zillow, Inc., Adchemy, Inc., and NexTag, Inc. did not infringe the two patents referenced above and determined that those patents are invalid due to an inventorship defect, and the court found that NexTag was entitled to defenses of laches and equitable estoppel. The jury found in the Company’s favor on the defendants' counterclaims alleging inequitable conduct and antitrust violations. Judgment was entered on March 31, 2014. After the court entered judgment, on May 27, 2014, the Company reached a settlement agreement with defendant Adchemy, Inc., including an agreement to dismiss and withdraw claims, counterclaims, and motions between the Company and Adchemy, Inc. As a result, a joint and voluntary dismissal was filed June 12, 2014 with respect to claims between the Company and Adchemy. The parties filed various post-trial motions; in particular, defendants collectively sought up to $9.7 million in fees and costs. On October 9, 2014, the court denied the Company's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and denied Zillow's post-trial motions for sanctions and attorneys' fees. The court also denied in part and granted in part NexTag's post-trial motion for attorneys' fees, awarding NexTag a portion of its attorneys' fees and costs totaling $2.3 million, plus interest. A reserve of $2.3 million for this matter is included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014. The trial and post-trial motion process is now complete. In November 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to the jury verdict concerning Zillow, Inc. and Nextag, Inc. and the award of attorneys' fees. In March 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the Company's motion to stay appellate briefing pending an en banc review by such court of the laches defense in an unrelated patent infringement matter and ruled in favor of Zillow, Inc. on an immaterial amount of legal fees. Internet Patents Corp. Internet Patents Corporation f/k/a InsWeb v. Tree.com, Inc., No. C-12-6505 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal.). In December 2012, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company seeking a judgment that it had infringed a patent held by the plaintiff. Process was formally served with respect to this matter in April 2013. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, damages, costs, expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff alleged that the Company infringed upon U.S. Patent No. 7,707,505, entitled "Dynamic Tabs for a Graphical User Interface". On October 25, 2013, the court dismissed the suit based on the finding that the plaintiff's claims failed as a matter of law because the asserted patent is invalid for lack of patent-eligible subject matter. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 7, 2013. In December 2013, the Company's case was consolidated with three other pending appeals involving the asserted patents. The plaintiff filed its opening appellate brief in January 2014, and the Company filed a joint appellate response brief in April 2014. A hearing on the consolidated appeals was held in August 2014 and the order remains pending. The Company believes the plaintiff's allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously. Money Suite The Money Suite Company v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 1:13-ev-986 (U.S. Dist. Ct, D Del.). In June 2013, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against LendingTree, LLC seeking a judgment that it infringed a patent held by plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that LendingTree, LLC infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,684,189 for "an apparatus and method using front end network gateways and search criteria for efficient quoting at a remote location". The plaintiff seeks damages (including pre- and post- judgment interest thereon), costs and attorneys' fees. In December 2013, the court stayed this case pending review of the patent by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In September 2014, LendingTree, LLC, together with defendants in related matters, requested that the stay be lifted and filed a motion to dismiss the case. In January 2015, the court granted defendants' motions for invalidity and dismissed the case. In February 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Company believes the plaintiff's allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously. AlphaCap Ventures AlphaCap Ventures LLC v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 2:15CV00062 (U.S. Dist. Ct, E.D.Tex). In January 2015, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against LendingTree, LLC seeking a judgment that LendingTree, LLC infringed three patents held by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that LendingTree, LLC infringes each of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,976, U.S. Patent No. 7,908,208 and U.S. Patent No. 8,433,630, each such patent entitled "Private Entity Profile Network" and relating generally to a computer-implemented method of collecting and managing information related to financing. The plaintiff seeks damages (including pre- and post-judgment interest thereon), injunctive relief and such other costs as the court may deem proper. The Company believes the plaintiff's allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously. Other Litigation Massachusetts Division of Banks On February 11, 2011, the Massachusetts Division of Banks (the "Division") delivered a Report of Examination/Inspection to LendingTree, LLC, which identified various alleged violations of Massachusetts and federal laws, including the alleged insufficient delivery by LendingTree, LLC of various disclosures to its customers. On October 14, 2011, the Division provided a proposed Consent Agreement and Order to settle the Division's allegations, which the Division had shared with other state mortgage lending regulators. Thirty-four of such state mortgage lending regulators (the "Joining Regulators") indicated that if LendingTree, LLC would enter into the Consent Agreement and Order, they would agree not to pursue any analogous allegations that they otherwise might assert. None of the Joining Regulators have asserted any such allegations. The proposed Consent Agreement and Order calls for a fine to be allocated among the Division and the Joining Regulators and for LendingTree, LLC to adopt various new procedures and practices. The Company has commenced negotiations toward an acceptable Consent Agreement and Order. It does not believe its mortgage marketplace business violated any federal or state mortgage lending laws; nor does it believe that any past operations of the mortgage business have resulted in a material violation of any such laws. Should the Division or any Joining Regulator bring any actions relating to the matters alleged in the February 2011 Report of Examination/Inspection, the Company intends to defend against such actions vigorously. The range of possible loss is estimated to be between $0.5 million and $6.5 million, and a reserve of $0.5 million has been established for this matter in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014. Federal Trade Commission In July 2014, the Company received a Non-Public Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") from the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"). The CID was issued pursuant to a January 2014 resolution of the FTC authorizing an investigation "to determine whether unnamed corporations have engaged or are engaging in deceptive or unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in the advertising, marketing, sale or servicing of loans and related products in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act of 1914, as amended. The CID indicated that this investigation was also to determine whether various unnamed loan brokers, lenders, loan services and other marketers of loans have engaged or are engaging in acts or practices in violation of the Consumer Credit Protection Act 15 U.S.C. Sec 1601 et seq." No specific wrongdoing by the Company was alleged, nor were any specific fines or penalties discussed in the CID. In January 2015, the FTC closed this investigation; no fines or penalties were assessed against the Company. Litigation Related to Discontinued Operations Dijkstra Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV). In November 2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"), violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment, contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class includes consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. In February 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"), HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC and the plaintiff settled the remaining Individual Claims in June 2014. In July 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the amount of $2.8 million. A reserve of $2.8 million has been established for this matter in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014, of which some or all may be covered by insurance. HLC filed a notice of appeal in August 2014, and in September 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that the district court's order was not yet final, and accordingly, HLC's appeal was dismissed. HLC intends to renew its appeal following the issuance of a final order by the district court. The district court has stayed this matter pending plaintiffs' investigation and subsequent report to the district court as to whether any class members will seek trials on individual damages.

CONTINGENCIES

Overview

LendingTree is involved in legal proceedings on an ongoing basis. In assessing the materiality of a legal proceeding, the Company evaluates, 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 it to change its business practices in a manner that could have a material and adverse impact on the business. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 11, unless otherwise indicated, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of such non-monetary remedies.

As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company has a litigation settlement accrual of $2.8 million and $0.5 million, respectively. The litigation settlement accrual relates to litigation matters that were either settled or a firm offer for settlement was extended, thereby establishing an accrual amount that is both probable and reasonably estimable.

Intellectual Property Litigation

Zillow

LendingTree v. Zillow, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-439. On September 8, 2010, the Company filed an action for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against Zillow, Inc., Nextag, Inc., Quinstreet, Inc., Quinstreet Media, Inc. and Adchemy, Inc. The complaint was amended to include Leadpoint, Inc. d/b/a Securerights on September 24, 2010. The complaint alleged that each of the defendants infringe one or both of the Company's patents—U.S. Patent No. 6,385,594, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet," and U.S. Patent No. 6,611,816, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet." The defendants in this action asserted various defenses and counterclaims against the Company, including the assertion by certain of the defendants of counterclaims alleging illegal monopolization via the Company's maintenance of the asserted patents. Defendant NexTag asserted defenses of laches and equitable estoppel. In July 2011, the Company reached a settlement agreement with Leadpoint, Inc., pursuant to which all claims against Leadpoint, Inc. and all counter-claims against the Company by Leadpoint, Inc. were dismissed. In November 2012, the Company reached a settlement agreement with Quinstreet, Inc. and Quinstreet Media, Inc. (collectively, the "Quinstreet Parties"), pursuant to which all claims against the Quinstreet Parties and all counterclaims against the Company by the Quinstreet Parties were dismissed. After an unsuccessful attempt to reach settlement through mediation with the remaining parties, this matter went to trial beginning in February 2014, and on March 12, 2014, the jury returned a verdict. The jury found that the defendants Zillow, Inc., Adchemy, Inc., and NexTag, Inc. did not infringe the two patents referenced above and determined that those patents are invalid due to an inventorship defect, and the court found that NexTag was entitled to defenses of laches and equitable estoppel. The jury found in the Company’s favor on the defendants' counterclaims alleging inequitable conduct and antitrust violations. Judgment was entered on March 31, 2014. After the court entered judgment, on May 27, 2014, the Company reached a settlement agreement with defendant Adchemy, Inc., including an agreement to dismiss and withdraw claims, counterclaims, and motions between the Company and Adchemy, Inc. As a result, a joint and voluntary dismissal was filed June 12, 2014 with respect to claims between the Company and Adchemy. The parties filed various post-trial motions; in particular, defendants collectively sought up to $9.7 million in fees and costs. On October 9, 2014, the court denied the Company's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and denied Zillow's post-trial motions for sanctions and attorneys' fees. The court also denied in part and granted in part NexTag's post-trial motion for attorneys' fees, awarding NexTag a portion of its attorneys' fees and costs totaling $2.3 million, plus interest. A reserve of $2.3 million for this matter is included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014. The trial and post-trial motion process is now complete. In November 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to the jury verdict concerning Zillow, Inc. and Nextag, Inc. and the award of attorneys' fees. In March 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the Company's motion to stay appellate briefing pending an en banc review by such court of the laches defense in an unrelated patent infringement matter and ruled in favor of Zillow, Inc. on an immaterial amount of legal fees.

Internet Patents Corp.

Internet Patents Corporation f/k/a InsWeb v. Tree.com, Inc., No. C-12-6505 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal.). In December 2012, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company seeking a judgment that it had infringed a patent held by the plaintiff. Process was formally served with respect to this matter in April 2013. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, damages, costs, expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff alleged that the Company infringed upon U.S. Patent No. 7,707,505, entitled "Dynamic Tabs for a Graphical User Interface". On October 25, 2013, the court dismissed the suit based on the finding that the plaintiff's claims failed as a matter of law because the asserted patent is invalid for lack of patent-eligible subject matter. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 7, 2013. In December 2013, the Company's case was consolidated with three other pending appeals involving the asserted patents. The plaintiff filed its opening appellate brief in January 2014, and the Company filed a joint appellate response brief in April 2014. A hearing on the consolidated appeals was held in August 2014 and the order remains pending. The Company believes the plaintiff's allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously.

Money Suite

The Money Suite Company v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 1:13-ev-986 (U.S. Dist. Ct, D Del.). In June 2013, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against LendingTree, LLC seeking a judgment that it infringed a patent held by plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that LendingTree, LLC infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,684,189 for "an apparatus and method using front end network gateways and search criteria for efficient quoting at a remote location". The plaintiff seeks damages (including pre- and post- judgment interest thereon), costs and attorneys' fees. In December 2013, the court stayed this case pending review of the patent by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In September 2014, LendingTree, LLC, together with defendants in related matters, requested that the stay be lifted and filed a motion to dismiss the case. In January 2015, the court granted defendants' motions for invalidity and dismissed the case. In February 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Company believes the plaintiff's allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously.

AlphaCap Ventures

AlphaCap Ventures LLC v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 2:15CV00062 (U.S. Dist. Ct, E.D.Tex). In January 2015, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against LendingTree, LLC seeking a judgment that LendingTree, LLC infringed three patents held by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that LendingTree, LLC infringes each of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,976, U.S. Patent No. 7,908,208 and U.S. Patent No. 8,433,630, each such patent entitled "Private Entity Profile Network" and relating generally to a computer-implemented method of collecting and managing information related to financing. The plaintiff seeks damages (including pre- and post-judgment interest thereon), injunctive relief and such other costs as the court may deem proper. The Company believes the plaintiff's allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously.

Other Litigation

Massachusetts Division of Banks

On February 11, 2011, the Massachusetts Division of Banks (the "Division") delivered a Report of Examination/Inspection to LendingTree, LLC, which identified various alleged violations of Massachusetts and federal laws, including the alleged insufficient delivery by LendingTree, LLC of various disclosures to its customers. On October 14, 2011, the Division provided a proposed Consent Agreement and Order to settle the Division's allegations, which the Division had shared with other state mortgage lending regulators. Thirty-four of such state mortgage lending regulators (the "Joining Regulators") indicated that if LendingTree, LLC would enter into the Consent Agreement and Order, they would agree not to pursue any analogous allegations that they otherwise might assert. None of the Joining Regulators have asserted any such allegations.

The proposed Consent Agreement and Order calls for a fine to be allocated among the Division and the Joining Regulators and for LendingTree, LLC to adopt various new procedures and practices. The Company has commenced negotiations toward an acceptable Consent Agreement and Order. It does not believe its mortgage marketplace business violated any federal or state mortgage lending laws; nor does it believe that any past operations of the mortgage business have resulted in a material violation of any such laws. Should the Division or any Joining Regulator bring any actions relating to the matters alleged in the February 2011 Report of Examination/Inspection, the Company intends to defend against such actions vigorously. The range of possible loss is estimated to be between $0.5 million and $6.5 million, and a reserve of $0.5 million has been established for this matter in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014.

Federal Trade Commission

In July 2014, the Company received a Non-Public Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") from the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"). The CID was issued pursuant to a January 2014 resolution of the FTC authorizing an investigation "to determine whether unnamed corporations have engaged or are engaging in deceptive or unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in the advertising, marketing, sale or servicing of loans and related products in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act of 1914, as amended. The CID indicated that this investigation was also to determine whether various unnamed loan brokers, lenders, loan services and other marketers of loans have engaged or are engaging in acts or practices in violation of the Consumer Credit Protection Act 15 U.S.C. Sec 1601 et seq." No specific wrongdoing by the Company was alleged, nor were any specific fines or penalties discussed in the CID. In January 2015, the FTC closed this investigation; no fines or penalties were assessed against the Company.

Litigation Related to Discontinued Operations

Dijkstra

Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV). In November 2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"), violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment, contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class includes consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. In February 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"), HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC and the plaintiff settled the remaining Individual Claims in June 2014.

In July 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the amount of $2.8 million. A reserve of $2.8 million has been established for this matter in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014, of which some or all may be covered by insurance. HLC filed a notice of appeal in August 2014, and in September 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that the district court's order was not yet final, and accordingly, HLC's appeal was dismissed. HLC intends to renew its appeal following the issuance of a final order by the district court. The district court has stayed this matter pending plaintiffs' investigation and subsequent report to the district court as to whether any class members will seek trials on individual damages.