Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	12. Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, we may be involved in legal, tax, regulatory and other proceedings in the ordinary course of business. Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation or other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Legal Proceedings Below is a summary of our currently pending material legal proceedings. We are subject to lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. The following legal proceedings are in various stages and are subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of material factual and legal issues. Accordingly, unless otherwise specifically noted, we cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolutions of these legal proceedings or estimate a range of possible losses or a minimum loss that could result from an adverse verdict in a potential lawsuit. While the lawsuits and claims are asserted for amounts that may be material should an unfavorable outcome occur, management does not currently expect that any currently pending matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. Consumer Rate Lawsuits Similar to other energy service companies ("ESCOs") operating in the industry, from time-to-time, the Company is subject to several class action lawsuits in various jurisdictions where the Company sells natural gas and electricity, such actions alleging consumers paid higher rates than they would have if they stayed with the default utility. Janet Rolland, et al v. Spark Energy, LLC is a purported class action originally filed on April 19, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Spark Energy, LLC charged a variable rate that was higher than permitted by its terms of service, resulting in breach of contract and violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs alleged claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The case seeks to certify a putative nationwide class of all Spark variable rate electricity customers from April 19, 2011 to the present. The relief sought includes unspecified actual damages, refunds, treble damages and punitive damages for the putative class, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. Spark obtained dismissal with prejudice of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim and has sought dismissal of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim and other claims. Discovery is ongoing in this matter. In April 2020, the Judge granted a 75 day stay order to allow the parties to work on mediation. The Company will participate in mediation to see if there is a cost-efficient way to settle this matter; however, Spark denies the allegations asserted by Plaintiffs and intends to vigorously defend this matter. Given the ongoing discovery and current stage of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome of this case at this time. Katherine Veilleux, et. al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet is a purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity Maine, LLC ("Electricity Maine"), an entity acquired by Spark Holdco in mid-2016, enrolled customers and conducted advertising, and promotions not in compliance with law. Plaintiffs seek damages for themselves and the purported class, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees. The parties have presented a settlement agreement for preliminary approval to the court, which we expect the court to review in second quarter of 2020. Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a class action originally filed on March 3, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed on October 8, 2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of Hartford, State of Connecticut. The Amended Complaint asserts that the Verde Companies charged rates in violation of its contracts with Connecticut customers and alleges (i) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-110a et seq., and (ii) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages for the class and injunctive relief. As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter. The parties have reached a class settlement in this matter, which received final court approval, and an order of dismissal on February 24, 2020. Settlement claims’ administration is continuing. The Company believes it has full indemnity coverage, net of tax benefit, for any actual exposure in this case at this time. Telemarketing Lawsuits Similar to other ESCOs operating in the industry, from time-to-time, the Company is subject to class actions in various jurisdictions where the Company sells energy, such actions alleging consumers received calls in violation of federal and/or state telemarketing laws. Albrecht v. Oasis Power, LLC is a putative nationwide class action that was filed on February 12, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that Oasis made illegal prerecorded telemarketing calls, including auto-dialed calls, to consumers’ mobile phones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act ("ATDA"). Plaintiff sought an injunction requiring Oasis to cease all unsolicited calling activities, an award of statutory and trebled damages under the TCPA and the ATDA, as well as costs and attorney’s fees. The parties have reached a class settlement on behalf of Oasis and other affiliated brands in the amount of $7.0 million, which received final court approval on February 6, 2020. Settlement claims’ administration has commenced and is continuing. Richardson et. al. v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a purported class action filed on November 25, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") or a prerecorded voice to the purported class members’ cellular phones without prior express consent and by continuing to make such calls after receiving requests for the calls to cease. Following discovery and dispositive motions, the Verde Companies received a favorable ruling on summary judgment with the court agreeing with the Verde Companies that the call system used in this case was not an ATDS as defined by the TCPA. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their petition eliminating their ATDS claim and including a class based on failure to comply with the National Do Not Call registry. As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter. The parties reached a settlement in this matter. On January 17, 2020, the court approved the Parties’ preliminary settlement and settlement claims’ administration has commenced. Final court approval is scheduled for May 27, 2020. Corporate Matter Lawsuits Saul Horowitz, as Sellers’ Representative for the former owners of the Major Energy Companies v. National Gas & Electric, LLC ("NG&E") and Spark Energy, Inc., is a lawsuit filed on October 17, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims of fraudulent inducement against NG&E, breach of contract against NG&E and Spark, and tortious interference with contract against Spark related to a membership interest purchase agreement, subsequent dropdown, and associated earnout agreements with the Major Energy Companies' former owners. The relief sought includes unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. This case went to trial during the first two weeks of March 2020 and all material has been submitted to the Judge for his decision. Given the trial was in Manhattan, New York, which has been under a shelter-in-place order, we are not able to predict when we receive a final decision on this matter. Spark and NG&E deny the allegations asserted by Plaintiffs have vigorously defended this matter; however, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. Regulatory Matters Many state regulators have increased scrutiny on retail energy providers, across all industry providers. We are subject to regular regulatory inquiries and preliminary investigations in the ordinary course of our business. Below is a summary of our currently pending material state regulatory matters. The following state regulatory matters are in various stages and are subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of material factual and legal issues. Accordingly, we cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolution of these state regulatory matters or estimate a range of possible losses or a minimum loss that could result from an adverse action. Management does not currently expect that any currently pending state regulatory matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. Connecticut. Spark Energy, LLC ("SE LLC") has been working with the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority ("PURA") regarding compliance with requirements implemented in 2016 that customer bills include any changes to existing rates effective for the next billing cycle. SE LLC and other ESCOs in Connecticut have agreed to submit to a proceeding offering amnesty to ESCOs that self-report violations and offer to voluntarily remit refunds to customers. Spark has remitted its report of potential customers who would be eligible for refunds under the amnesty program and submitted its confidential settlement proposal along with SE LLC’s commitment, subject to certain conditions. PURA has completed its review and audit and issued a final decision on March 31, 2020 regarding SE LLC’s amnesty payment, which SE LLC will comply with and pay in May 2020. Illinois, Spark Energy, LLC received a verbal inquiry from the Illinois Commerce Commission ("ICC") and the Illinois Attorney General ("IAG") on January 1, 2020 seeking to understand an increase in complaints from Illinois consumers. The Company met with the ICC and the IAG in February 2020 and plan to discuss a compliance plan to ensure its sales are in compliance with Illinois regulations. The parties also discussed possible restitution payments to any customers impacted by sales not in compliance with Illinois regulations. The Company is currently working with both regulators on this matter. Maine. In early 2018, Staff of the Maine Public Utilities Commission (“Maine PUC”) issued letters to Electricity Maine seeking information about customer complaints principally associated with door-to-door (“D2D”) sales practices. In late July 2018, the Maine PUC issued an Order to Show Cause and Electricity Maine responded in mid-August 2018. The Commission scheduled a procedural conference in early 2019 that resulted in no intervenors other than participation as a party by the Maine Office of Public Advocate. At the conference, the parties agreed on a procedural schedule, including a one-day evidentiary hearing. Following post-hearing discovery, Initial and Reply Briefs were filed on August 30, 2019 and September 10, 2019, respectively. The Maine PUC hearing examiner released its report in April 2020 alleging failures of compliance related to enrollment and marketing practices by Electricity Maine. The Company agreed that the best resolution to this matter was a $1.0 million settlement, to be paid over a two-year period, which will provide consumer relief and assistance for those who have energy needs related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This settlement is pending approval by the PUC. New York. Prior to the purchase of Major Energy by the Company, in 2015, Major Energy Services, LLC and Major Energy Electric Services were contacted by the Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Frauds & Protection for State of New York relating to their marketing practices. Major Energy has exchanged information in response to various requests from the Attorney General. The parties are in settlement negotiations at this time. While investigations of this nature may be resolved in a manner that allows the retail energy supplier to continue operating in New York with stipulations, there can be no assurances that the New York Attorney General will not take more severe action. Ohio. Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC (“Verde Ohio”) was the subject of a formal investigation by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“PUCO”) initiated on April 16, 2019. The investigation asserted that Verde Ohio may have violated Ohio’s retail energy supplier regulations. Verde Ohio voluntary suspended door-to-door marketing in Ohio in furtherance of settlement negotiations with the PUCO Staff. On September 6, 2019, Verde Ohio and PUCO Staff executed and filed with PUCO a Joint Stipulation and Recommendation for PUCO’s review and approval, which sets forth agreed settlement terms, which includes a $1.7 million in refunds to customers and a penalty of $0.7 million. The settlement approved by PUCO on February 26, 2020, and the Joint Stipulation and Recommendation resolves all of the issues raised in the investigation. The parties are working together to agree on the process of providing refunds to customers. The Ohio Officer of Consumer Counsel has contested this settlement, and has initiated discovery requests to Verde Ohio as well as contesting Verde Ohio’s license renewal. In addition, in September of 2019, the Ohio Attorney General (“OAG”) alleged that Verde Ohio had violated its Consumer Sales Practice Act and Do Not Call regulations. Verde Ohio is cooperating and responding to the OAG’s document requests; however, at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Pennsylvania. Verde Energy USA, Inc. (“Verde”) is the subject of a formal investigation by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement (“PPUC”) initiated on January 30, 2020. The investigation asserts that Verde may have violated Pennsylvania retail energy supplier regulations. The Company met with the PPUC in February 2020 to discuss the matter and work with the PPUC cooperatively. The Company has provided a settlement term sheet to the PPUC and the parties are working cooperatively together on a resolution and settlement; however, currently, the Company cannot predict the outcome at this time. Indirect Tax Audits We are undergoing various types of indirect tax audits spanning from years 2013 to 2019 for which we may have additional liabilities arise. At the time of filing these condensed consolidated financial statements, these indirect tax audits are at an early stage and subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of audit findings and corresponding responses. As of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, we had accrued $23.8 million and $29.2 million, respectively, related to litigation and regulatory matters and $2.1 million and $1.8 million, respectively, related to indirect tax audits. The outcome of each of these may result in additional expense.

12. Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, we may be involved in legal, tax, regulatory and other proceedings in the ordinary course of business. Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation or other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

Legal Proceedings

Below is a summary of our currently pending material legal proceedings. We are subject to lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. The following legal proceedings are in various stages and are subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of material factual and legal issues. Accordingly, unless otherwise specifically noted, we cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolutions of these legal proceedings or estimate a range of possible losses or a minimum loss that could result from an adverse verdict in a potential lawsuit. While the lawsuits and claims are asserted for amounts that may be material should an unfavorable outcome occur, management does not currently expect that any currently pending matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

Consumer Rate Lawsuits

Similar to other energy service companies ("ESCOs") operating in the industry, from time-to-time, the Company is subject to several class action lawsuits in various jurisdictions where the Company sells natural gas and electricity, such actions alleging consumers paid higher rates than they would have if they stayed with the default utility.

Janet Rolland, et al v. Spark Energy, LLC is a purported class action originally filed on April 19, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Spark Energy, LLC charged a variable rate that was higher than permitted by its terms of service, resulting in breach of contract and violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs alleged claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The case seeks to certify a putative nationwide class of all Spark variable rate electricity customers from April 19, 2011 to the present. The relief sought includes unspecified actual damages, refunds, treble damages and punitive damages for the putative class, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. Spark obtained dismissal with prejudice of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim and has sought dismissal of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim and other claims. Discovery is ongoing in this matter. In April 2020, the Judge granted a 75 day stay order to allow the parties to work on mediation. The Company will participate in mediation to see if there is a cost-efficient way to settle this matter; however, Spark denies the allegations asserted by Plaintiffs and intends to vigorously defend this matter. Given the ongoing discovery and current stage of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome of this case at this time.

Katherine Veilleux, et. al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet is a purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity Maine, LLC ("Electricity Maine"), an entity acquired by Spark Holdco in mid-2016, enrolled customers and conducted advertising, and promotions not in compliance with law. Plaintiffs seek damages for themselves and the purported class, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees. The parties have presented a settlement agreement for preliminary approval to the court, which we expect the court to review in second quarter of 2020.

Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a class action originally filed on March 3, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed on October 8, 2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of Hartford, State of Connecticut. The Amended Complaint asserts that the Verde Companies charged rates in violation of its contracts with Connecticut customers and alleges (i) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-110a et seq., and (ii) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages for the class and injunctive relief. As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter. The parties have reached a class settlement in this matter, which received final court approval, and an order of dismissal on February 24, 2020. Settlement claims’ administration is continuing. The Company believes it has full indemnity coverage, net of tax benefit, for any actual exposure in this case at this time.

Telemarketing Lawsuits

Similar to other ESCOs operating in the industry, from time-to-time, the Company is subject to class actions in various jurisdictions where the Company sells energy, such actions alleging consumers received calls in violation of federal and/or state telemarketing laws.

Albrecht v. Oasis Power, LLC is a putative nationwide class action that was filed on February 12, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that Oasis made illegal prerecorded telemarketing calls, including auto-dialed calls, to consumers’ mobile phones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act ("ATDA"). Plaintiff sought an injunction requiring Oasis to cease all unsolicited calling activities, an award of statutory and trebled damages under the TCPA and the ATDA, as well as costs and attorney’s fees. The parties have reached a class settlement on behalf of Oasis and other affiliated brands in the amount of $7.0 million, which received final court approval on February 6, 2020. Settlement claims’ administration has commenced and is continuing.

Richardson et. al. v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a purported class action filed on November 25, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") or a prerecorded voice to the purported class members’ cellular phones without prior express consent and by continuing to make such calls after receiving requests for the calls to cease. Following discovery and dispositive motions, the Verde Companies received a favorable ruling on summary judgment with the court agreeing with the Verde Companies that the call system used in this case was not an ATDS as defined by the TCPA. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their petition eliminating their ATDS claim and including a class based on failure to comply with the National Do Not Call registry. As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter. The parties reached a settlement in this matter. On January 17, 2020, the court approved the Parties’ preliminary settlement and settlement claims’ administration has commenced. Final court approval is scheduled for May 27, 2020.

Corporate Matter Lawsuits

Saul Horowitz, as Sellers’ Representative for the former owners of the Major Energy Companies v. National Gas & Electric, LLC ("NG&E") and Spark Energy, Inc., is a lawsuit filed on October 17, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims of fraudulent inducement against NG&E, breach of contract against NG&E and Spark, and tortious interference with contract against Spark related to a membership interest purchase agreement, subsequent dropdown, and associated earnout agreements with the Major Energy Companies' former owners. The relief sought includes unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. This case went to trial during the first two weeks of March 2020 and all material has been submitted to the Judge for his decision. Given the trial was in Manhattan, New York, which has been under a shelter-in-place order, we are not able to predict when we receive a final decision on this matter. Spark and NG&E deny the allegations asserted by Plaintiffs have vigorously defended this matter; however, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time.

Regulatory Matters

Many state regulators have increased scrutiny on retail energy providers, across all industry providers. We are subject to regular regulatory inquiries and preliminary investigations in the ordinary course of our business. Below is a summary of our currently pending material state regulatory matters. The following state regulatory matters are in various stages and are subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of material factual and legal issues. Accordingly, we cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolution of these state regulatory matters or estimate a range of possible losses or a minimum loss that could result from an adverse action. Management does not currently expect that any currently pending state regulatory matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

Connecticut. Spark Energy, LLC ("SE LLC") has been working with the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority ("PURA") regarding compliance with requirements implemented in 2016 that customer bills include any changes to existing rates effective for the next billing cycle. SE LLC and other ESCOs in Connecticut have agreed to submit to a proceeding offering amnesty to ESCOs that self-report violations and offer to voluntarily remit refunds to customers. Spark has remitted its report of potential customers who would be eligible for refunds under the amnesty program and submitted its confidential settlement proposal along with SE LLC’s commitment, subject to certain conditions. PURA has completed its review and audit and issued a final decision on March 31, 2020 regarding SE LLC’s amnesty payment, which SE LLC will comply with and pay in May 2020.

Illinois, Spark Energy, LLC received a verbal inquiry from the Illinois Commerce Commission ("ICC") and the Illinois Attorney General ("IAG") on January 1, 2020 seeking to understand an increase in complaints from Illinois consumers. The Company met with the ICC and the IAG in February 2020 and plan to discuss a compliance plan to ensure its sales are in compliance with Illinois regulations. The parties also discussed possible restitution payments to any customers impacted by sales not in compliance with Illinois regulations. The Company is currently working with both regulators on this matter.

Maine. In early 2018, Staff of the Maine Public Utilities Commission (“Maine PUC”) issued letters to Electricity Maine seeking information about customer complaints principally associated with door-to-door (“D2D”) sales practices. In late July 2018, the Maine PUC issued an Order to Show Cause and Electricity Maine responded in mid-August 2018. The Commission scheduled a procedural conference in early 2019 that resulted in no intervenors other than participation as a party by the Maine Office of Public Advocate. At the conference, the parties agreed on a procedural schedule, including a one-day evidentiary hearing. Following post-hearing discovery, Initial and Reply Briefs were filed on August 30, 2019 and September 10, 2019, respectively. The Maine PUC hearing examiner released its report in April 2020 alleging failures of compliance related to enrollment and marketing practices by Electricity Maine. The Company agreed that the best resolution to this matter was a $1.0 million settlement, to be paid over a two-year period, which will provide consumer relief and assistance for those who have energy needs related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This settlement is pending approval by the PUC.

New York. Prior to the purchase of Major Energy by the Company, in 2015, Major Energy Services, LLC and Major Energy Electric Services were contacted by the Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Frauds & Protection for State of New York relating to their marketing practices. Major Energy has exchanged information in response to various requests from the Attorney General. The parties are in settlement negotiations at this time. While investigations of this nature may be resolved in a manner that allows the retail energy supplier to continue operating in New York with stipulations, there can be no assurances that the New York Attorney General will not take more severe action.

Ohio. Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC (“Verde Ohio”) was the subject of a formal investigation by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“PUCO”) initiated on April 16, 2019. The investigation asserted that Verde Ohio may have violated Ohio’s retail energy supplier regulations. Verde Ohio voluntary suspended door-to-door marketing in Ohio in furtherance of settlement negotiations with the PUCO Staff. On September 6, 2019, Verde Ohio and PUCO Staff executed and filed with PUCO a Joint Stipulation and Recommendation for PUCO’s review and approval, which sets forth agreed settlement terms, which includes a $1.7 million in refunds to customers and a penalty of $0.7 million. The settlement approved by PUCO on February 26, 2020, and the Joint Stipulation and Recommendation resolves all of the issues raised in the investigation. The parties are working together to agree on the process of providing refunds to customers. The Ohio Officer of Consumer Counsel has contested this settlement, and has initiated discovery requests to Verde Ohio as well as contesting Verde Ohio’s license renewal.

In addition, in September of 2019, the Ohio Attorney General (“OAG”) alleged that Verde Ohio had violated its Consumer Sales Practice Act and Do Not Call regulations. Verde Ohio is cooperating and responding to the OAG’s document requests; however, at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Pennsylvania. Verde Energy USA, Inc. (“Verde”) is the subject of a formal investigation by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement (“PPUC”) initiated on January 30, 2020. The investigation asserts that Verde may have violated Pennsylvania retail energy supplier regulations. The Company met with the PPUC in February 2020 to discuss the matter and work with the PPUC cooperatively. The Company has provided a settlement term sheet to the PPUC and the parties are working cooperatively together on a resolution and settlement; however, currently, the Company cannot predict the outcome at this time.

Indirect Tax Audits

We are undergoing various types of indirect tax audits spanning from years 2013 to 2019 for which we may have additional liabilities arise. At the time of filing these condensed consolidated financial statements, these indirect tax audits are at an early stage and subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of audit findings and corresponding responses.

As of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, we had accrued $23.8 million and $29.2 million, respectively, related to litigation and regulatory matters and $2.1 million and $1.8 million, respectively, related to indirect tax audits. The outcome of each of these may result in additional expense.