What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2023-03-01 compared with 2022-03-01 · 27 added, 13 removed, 23 unchanged (63% of the section changed)

6 unchanged sentences

Rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission require the description of material pending legal proceedings (other than ordinary, routine litigation incident to the registrant’s business) and advise that proceedings ordinarily need not be described if they primarily involve damages claims for amounts (exclusive of interest and costs) not exceeding 10% of the current assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.

In the judgment of Company management, none of the pending litigation matters which we are defending, including the one described below, involves or is likely to involve amounts of that magnitude.

The litigation matter and the investigation described below involves issues or claims that may be of particular interest to our stockholders, regardless of whether this matter may be material to our financial position or operations based upon the standard set forth in the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

FTC Investigation of Certain HomeAdvisor Business Practices

On April 19, 2021, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) informed HomeAdvisor that upon investigation it believes that certain of HomeAdvisor’s business practices relating to leads provided to service professionals and its mHelpDesk product are unfair or deceptive in violation of the FTC Act.

The Company and FTC have been engaged in discussions about the staff’s beliefs, and those discussions are ongoing.

While HomeAdvisor believes that any such claims would be without merit and is prepared to defend vigorously against any enforcement proceeding, it is continuing a dialogue with the FTC to discuss the matter and cannot currently predict the outcome of this investigation and related discussions.

In the judgment of Company management, none of the pending litigation matters which we are defending, including those described below, involves or is likely to involve amounts of that magnitude.

The matters described below involve issues or claims that may be of particular interest to our stockholders, regardless of whether they may be material to our financial position or operations based upon the standard set forth in the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

FTC Administrative Proceeding against HomeAdvisor

On March 11, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed an administrative complaint against HomeAdvisor, alleging that certain of HomeAdvisor’s business practices related to leads provided to service professionals (“SPs”) and its mHelpDesk product are unfair or deceptive in violation of the FTC Act and requesting injunctive relief.

The Company disputes these allegations and believes that its business practices are fully in compliance with the law.

On April 7, 2022, the FTC staff filed a motion for summary decision before the Commission, which the Commissioners denied on August 2, 2022.

Settlement discussions between the parties ensued.

On December 2, 2022, the FTC withdrew the matter from adjudication for the purpose of considering a proposed consent order negotiated by the Company and the FTC staff.

Under the proposed consent order, HomeAdvisor would undertake certain commitments concerning representations to SPs and related reporting obligations and would fund up to $7.2 million for restitutionary payments to SPs (with any unclaimed amounts reverting to HomeAdvisor) and settlement administration costs.

On January 23, 2023, the Commission accepted the proposed consent order, subject to a public-comment period that will end on March 8, 2023.

Service Professional Class Action Litigation against HomeAdvisor

3 unchanged sentences

District Court for the District of Colorado.

The complaint, as amended in November 2016, alleges that our HomeAdvisor business engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service professionals who join its network, including charging them for substandard customer leads and failing to disclose certain charges.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting of all HomeAdvisor service professionals since October 2012, asserts claims for fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the federal RICO statute and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”), and seeks injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount.

The complaint, as amended in November 2016, alleges that HomeAdvisor engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service professionals (“SPs”) who join its network, including charging them for substandard customer leads and failing to disclose certain charges.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting of all HomeAdvisor SPs since October 2012, asserts claims for fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the federal RICO statute and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”), and seeks injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount.

In July 2018, the plaintiffs’ counsel filed a separate putative class action in the U.S.

1 unchanged sentence

HomeAdvisor, Inc.

1:18-cv-1802, on behalf of the same nine proposed new plaintiffs in the Airquip case, naming as defendants HomeAdvisor, Angi and IAC (as well as an unrelated company), and asserting 45 claims largely duplicative of those asserted in the proposed second amended complaint in the Airquip case.

1:18-cv-1802, on behalf of the same nine SPs proposed as new plaintiffs in the Airquip case, naming as defendants HomeAdvisor, Angi and IAC (as well as an unrelated company), and asserting 45 claims largely duplicative of those asserted in a proposed second amended complaint in the Airquip case.

In November 2018, the judge presiding over the Airquip case issued an order consolidating the two cases to proceed before him under the caption In re HomeAdvisor, Inc.

1 unchanged sentence

(a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and thus, an entity affiliated with HomeAdvisor) and two unrelated entities.

In February 2019, the defendants opposed the motion on

various grounds.

In February 2019, the defendants opposed the motion on various grounds.

In September 2019, the court issued an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion.

In October and December 2019, the four defendants affiliated with HomeAdvisor filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the amended complaint.

On September 29, 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Discovery in the case will close during 2022, after which the parties will begin litigating the issue of class certification.

In September 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

On May 5, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.

On June 27, 2022, the Company opposed the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which remains pending.

The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them.

False Advertising Litigation against HomeAdvisor

In March 2018, the San Francisco District Attorney filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, People of the State of California v.

HomeAdvisor, Inc.

CGC-18-565008.

The lawsuit alleges that HomeAdvisor violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law by misleading California consumers about the scope of its background check program.

The claims focus on certain television commercials, radio advertisements, and website disclosures during the 2014-18 period.

In May 2018, the court issued a preliminary injunction against the Company barring it from airing the then-current versions of the advertisements.

In May 2020, the state Court of Appeals affirmed the preliminary injunction.

The trial court recently set a trial date of April 3, 2023.

The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them.

Mine Safety Disclosures

1 unchanged sentence

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-K

Item 3. Legal Proceedings