Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Phone Recovery Services, LLC (“Phone Recovery Services”) and Phone Administrative Services, Inc. (“Phone Administrative Services”) acting or purporting to act on behalf of applicable jurisdictions, or the applicable county or city itself, have filed multiple lawsuits against us and/or one of our subsidiaries alleging that we failed to bill, collect and remit certain taxes and surcharges associated with the provision of 911 services.
The following county or municipal governments have named us in lawsuits associated with the collection and remittance of 911 taxes and surcharges that remain unresolved: the City and County of San Francisco, California (the “California Case”); Cook County and Kane County Illinois; City of Chicago, Illinois; the State of Illinois (collectively, the “Illinois Case”); the State of New York (the “New York Case”); Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the “Pennsylvania Case”); and the State of Rhode Island (the “Rhode Island Case”). The complaints allege that we failed to bill, collect and remit certain taxes and surcharges associated with 911 service pursuant to applicable laws. The California Case was originally filed under seal in January 2020 and was served on Bandwidth in February 2021. The Illinois Case was dismissed by the trial court in December 2016, but returned to the trial court following an appeal. The plaintiffs’ amended complaint in the Illinois Case was filed on August 12, 2019. We filed a motion to dismiss the Illinois Case on September 26, 2019. The New York Case originally was filed under seal in 2014, amended and filed under seal in 2018, and made available publicly on October 25, 2019. We filed a motion to dismiss the New York Case on February 14, 2020. The Rhode Island Case originally was filed under seal in 2014 and was made available publicly in 2015. Our response to the complaint in the Rhode Island Case has been on hold since 2015, pending the filing of an amended complaint. The Pennsylvania Case is stayed pending the outcome of a related proceeding before the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) that is currently the subject of an appeal.
On November 30, 2020, we were named as a defendant in a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in a putative class action captioned Diana Mey v. All Access Telecom, Inc., et al. pending in the United States District
54
Table of Contents
Court, Northern District of West Virginia relating to the alleged failure to block unsolicited phone calls to the plaintiff and putative class members. We filed a motion to dismiss the action on February 3, 2021.
We intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits and believe we have meritorious defenses to each. However, litigation is inherently uncertain, and any judgment or injunctive relief entered against us or any adverse settlement could negatively affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
In addition to the litigation discussed above, from time to time, we may be subject to legal actions and claims in the ordinary course of business. We have received, and may in the future continue to receive, claims from third parties relating to number management, and claims asserting, among other things, infringement of their intellectual property rights. Future litigation may be necessary to defend ourselves, our partners and our customers by determining the scope, enforceability and validity of third-party proprietary rights, or to establish our proprietary rights. The results of any current or future litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, and regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
55
Table of Contents
PART II - OTHER INFORMATION