Contingencies
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Contingencies
Contingencies
As part of our consumer services, we offer 24x7x365 member service support. If a member’s identity has been compromised, our member service team and remediation specialists will assist the member until the issue has been resolved. This includes our $1 million service guarantee, which is backed by an identity theft insurance policy, under which we will spend up to $1 million to cover certain third-party costs and expenses incurred in connection with the remediation, such as legal and investigatory fees. This insurance also covers certain out-of-pocket expenses, such as loss of income, replacement of fraudulent withdrawals, and costs associated with child and elderly care, travel, stolen purse/wallet, and replacement of documents. While we have reimbursed members for claims under this guarantee, the amounts in aggregate for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 were not material.
On March 13, 2014, we received a request from the FTC for documents and information related to our compliance with the FTC Order. Prior to our receipt of the FTC’s request, we met with FTC staff on January 17, 2014, at our request, to discuss issues regarding allegations that have been asserted in a whistleblower claim against us relating to our compliance with the FTC Order. On October 29, 2014, we completed our responses to the FTC’s March 13, 2014 request for information. On January 5, 2015, we completed our responses to the FTC’s subsequent requests for clarification regarding certain information that we previously submitted. We have engaged in ongoing discussions with the FTC Staff regarding the FTC's inquiry into our compliance with the FTC Order. On February 4, 2015, we made a $20,000 settlement offer to the FTC Staff and we remain in ongoing discussions with the FTC Staff regarding a possible settlement of this inquiry. As a result of those discussions, we have accrued $20,000 as of December 31, 2014 for a possible settlement with the FTC. The ultimate resolution of the matter could result in a loss of up to $100,000.
On January 19, 2015, plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm filed a nationwide putative consumer class action against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  The plaintiffs allege that we have engaged in deceptive marketing and sales practices in connection with our membership plans in violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and are seeking declaratory judgment under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act.  The plaintiffs also seek certification of a nationwide class of consumers who are or were subscribers of  our identity theft protection services since January 19, 2014, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. We were served with the complaint on January 22, 2015. On March 6, we filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 27, 2015. Our response to that amended complaint is due on May 12, 2015.
On January 29, 2015, plaintiff Etan Goldman filed a California putative consumer class action complaint against us in Santa Clara Superior Court in San Jose, California. The complaint alleges that we violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law by failing to provide required disclosures concerning our auto renewal terms and cancellation policies.  The complaint also seeks certification of a class consisting of all persons in California who have purchased subscriptions to identity theft protection services from us since December 1, 2010, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 15, 2015, the parties participated in a mediation, and signed a Confidential Memorandum of Agreement for a Settlement Agreement. The motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement is currently scheduled to be filed on May 22, 2015. 
On February 2, 2015, plaintiff, Thomas A. Trax, filed a class action complaint against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.  The complaint asserted that we violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law by failing to provide required disclosures concerning our auto renewal terms and cancellation policies. The complaint seeks certification of a class consisting of all persons in California who have purchased products and/or services from us as part of an automatic renewal plan or continuous service offer since February 2, 2011, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, a constructive trust and/or disgorgement, and attorneys’ fees and costs.  We have not yet been served with the complaint. On April 15, 2015, Mr. Trax agreed to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and we expect that to occur shortly.
On March 3, 2014, Dawn B. Bien, representing herself and seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired our securities from February 26, 2013 to February 19, 2014, inclusive, filed a class action complaint in United States District Court for the District of Arizona alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against us, Todd Davis, and Chris Power.  We refer to this complaint as the Bien Complaint. On March 10, 2014, Joseph F. Scesny also filed a class action complaint in the same court against the same parties that made substantively similar allegations and requested substantially similar relief as the Bien Complaint.  We refer to this complaint as the Scesny Complaint. On June 16, 2014, the court consolidated the Bien Complaint and Scesny Complaint into a single action captioned In re LifeLock, Inc. Securities Litigation.  The court also appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  On August 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, or the Consolidated Amended Complaint, against us, Mr. Davis, Mr. Power, and Hilary Schneider seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired our securities from February 26, 2013 to May 16, 2014, inclusive, or the Class Period.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that we, along with Ms. Schneider and Messrs. Davis and Power, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts regarding certain of our business, operational, and compliance policies, including with regard to certain of our services, our data security program, and our and Mr. Davis’ compliance with the FTC Order.   The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that, as a result, certain public statements made by Ms. Schneider and Messrs. Davis and Power during the Class Period, and certain of our financial statements issued during the Class Period, were false and misleading.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint sought certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.  On September 15, 2014, we, along with Ms. Schneider and Messrs. Davis and Power, filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. A hearing on our motion to dismiss was held on December 1, 2014.   On December 17, 2014, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint and gave the lead plaintiff 21 days to seek leave to amend. The lead plaintiff filed his Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, on January 16, 2015. The Second Consolidated Amended Complaint no longer names Ms. Schneider as a defendant, but otherwise makes substantively similar allegations as the Consolidated Amended Complaint. It alleges that we, along with Messrs. Davis and Power, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts regarding certain of our business, operational, and compliance policies, including with regard to certain of our services, our data security program, and our and Mr. Davis’ compliance with the FTC Order. The Second Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that, as a result, certain public statements made by Messrs. Davis and Power during the Class Period, and certain of our financial statements issued during the Class Period, were false and misleading. The Second Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. We, along with Messrs. Davis and Power, filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint on January 30, 2015. A hearing on our motion to dismiss was held on March 16, 2015. We are waiting for the court to rule on our motion.
On March 20, 2014, Michael D. Peters filed a complaint in United States District Court for the District of Arizona against our company, Kim Jones, and Cristy Schaan.  Mr. Jones is not affiliated with us.  Ms. Schaan is our Chief Information Security Officer.  In his complaint, Mr. Peters alleges that we violated the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act by terminating Mr. Peters’ employment as a result of alleged disclosures that he made to us, and that Ms. Schaan defamed Mr. Peters.  Mr. Peters seeks from us two times his back pay, two times the value of certain stock options and bonus, moving expenses, damages for emotional harm and anxiety, damages for harm to reputation, litigation costs including attorneys’ fees, and interest, and sought from Ms. Schaan actual damages, punitive damages, and interest.  On April 21, 2014, we filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims, answering Mr. Peters’ claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and asserting counterclaims against Mr. Peters for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, based on our allegations that we were induced to hire Mr. Peters by his false statements and misrepresentations regarding his employment history and seeking to recover actual and consequential damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and the signing bonus paid to Mr. Peters.  Mr. Peters answered our counterclaims on May 7, 2014.  On April 21, 2014, we also filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Peters’ claim under the Dodd-Frank Act.  On April 25, 2014, Ms. Schaan filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Peters’ claim against her.  On June 2, 2014, Mr. Peters filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings directed to our unjust enrichment counterclaim, one of the four counterclaims we brought against Mr. Peters.  The court ruled on all of the pending motions on September 19, 2014.  Ms. Schaan’s motion to dismiss the defamation claim against her was granted and she was dismissed from the case. Our motion and the motion filed by Mr. Peters and LifeLock were denied. In addition, Mr. Peters dismissed his claim against Mr. Jones pursuant to a settlement. On October 3, 2014, we filed an amended answer responding to both of the claims Mr. Peters asserted against us. On January 22, 2015, the court entered a scheduling order containing certain deadlines for the case, including the completion of all discovery by October 30, 2015, the filing of any dispositive motions by December 4, 2015, and the filing of certain pre-trial submissions by March 4, 2016. A status hearing is set in the case for August 14, 2015.
On August 1, 2014, our subsidiaries Lemon and Lemon Argentina, S.R.L. (Lemon Argentina, and together, the Lemon Entities) filed a lawsuit in Santa Clara Superior Court in San Jose, California against Wenceslao Casares, former General Manager of Lemon, Cynthia McAdam, former General Counsel of Lemon, and Federico Murrone, Martin Apesteguia and Fabian Cuesta, each a former employee and former member of the Board of Directors of Lemon Argentina (the Argentine Executives). The complaint alleges breaches of employment-related contracts and breaches of fiduciary duty involving each named individual’s work for third-party Xapo, Inc. and/or Xapo, Ltd. during their employment by the applicable Lemon Entity.  Mr. Casares and Ms. McAdam have been served.  The Lemon Entities are in the process of serving the Argentine Executives through the procedures set forth in the Hague Convention.  Mr. Casares and Ms. Cynthia McAdam, through their counsel, have demanded that we and Lemon defend them against the claims brought by the Lemon Entities and advance them the costs of their attorneys’ fees.  We and Lemon have rejected those demands.  The parties, including the Argentine Executives, engaged in mediation in August 2014 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and again in December 2014 in San Francisco, California but were unable to settle any claims. On January 30, 2015, the Lemon entities filed a second amended complaint alleging breaches of employment-related contracts, breaches of fiduciary duties and fraud, and seeking declaratory relief against Mr. Casares, Ms. McAdam and the Argentine Executives. The parties have begun discovery and Mr. Casares and Ms. McAdam are required to respond to the second amended complaint no later than May 1, 2015. Although no counterclaims have been asserted against us or the Lemon Entities to date in connection with this matter, it is possible that they will be asserted in the future.
We are subject to other legal proceedings and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate disposition of these matters, we believe, based upon the information available at this time, that, except as disclosed above, a material adverse outcome related to the matters is neither probable nor estimable.