Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies From time to time, we are a party to various claims, non-income tax audits and litigation in the normal course of business. As of December 31, 2022 and June 30, 2023, we had recorded aggregate liabilities of $1.6 billion and $1.5 billion, respectively, of which $0.6 billion and $0.4 billion, respectively, relate to non-income tax matters in accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets for all of our legal, regulatory and non-income tax matters that were probable and reasonably estimable. We are currently party to various legal and regulatory matters that have arisen in the normal course of business and include, among others, alleged independent contractor misclassification claims, Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) claims, alleged background check violations, pricing and advertising claims, unfair competition claims, intellectual property claims, employment discrimination and other employment-related claims, Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claims, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims, data and privacy claims, securities claims, antitrust claims, challenges to regulations, and other matters. We have existing litigation, including class actions, Private Attorney General Act lawsuits, arbitration claims, and governmental administrative and audit proceedings, asserting claims by or on behalf of Drivers that Drivers are misclassified as independent contractors. In connection with the enactment of California State Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), we have received and expect to continue to receive - in California and in other jurisdictions - an increased number of misclassification claims. With respect to our outstanding legal and regulatory matters, based on our current knowledge, we believe that the ultimate amount or range of reasonably possible loss will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The outcome of such legal matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. If one or more of these matters were resolved against us for amounts in excess of management's expectations, our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows could be materially adversely affected. Driver Classification California Attorney General Lawsuit In January 2020, AB5 went into effect. AB5 codifies a test to determine whether a worker is an employee under California law. The test is referred to as the “ABC” test, and was originally handed down by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court in 2018. Under the ABC test, workers performing services for a hiring entity are considered employees unless the hiring entity can demonstrate three things: the worker (A) is free from the hiring entity’s control, (B) performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and (C) customarily engages in the independent trade, work or type of business performed for the hiring entity. On May 5, 2020, the California Attorney General, in conjunction with the city attorneys for San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, filed a complaint in San Francisco Superior Court against Uber and Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”). The complaint alleges drivers are misclassified, and seeks an injunction and monetary damages related to the alleged competitive advantage caused by the alleged misclassification of drivers. On August 10, 2020, the Court issued a preliminary injunction order, prohibiting us from classifying drivers as independent contractors and from violating various wage and hour laws. The injunction was stayed pending appeal. On October 22, 2020, the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s ruling, and we filed a petition for review of the decision with the California Supreme Court. The petition was based upon the passage of Proposition 22 by California voters in November 2020, and requested that the Court of Appeal opinion be vacated because AB5’s application to Uber was superseded by Proposition 22. Proposition 22 was a state ballot initiative that provides a framework for drivers that use platforms like ours to qualify as independent workers. As a result of the passage of Proposition 22, Drivers are able to maintain their status as independent contractors under California law, and we and our competitors are required to comply with the provisions of Proposition 22. Proposition 22 went into effect on December 16, 2020. The California Supreme Court declined the petition for review on February 10, 2021. The lawsuit was returned to the trial court following the appellate proceedings on February 22, 2021. On April 12, 2021, the California Attorney General, Uber and Lyft filed a stipulation to dissolve the preliminary injunction with the trial court. On April 16, 2021, the trial court signed an order granting the stipulation. Although the preliminary injunction has been dissolved, the lawsuit remains ongoing relating to claims by the California Attorney General for periods prior to enactment of Proposition 22. We have petitioned to stay this matter pending coordination with other California employment related matters, which was granted and a coordination judge was assigned. Since the assignment of the coordination judge, the case has been stayed pending appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves. Our chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated. Castellanos v. State (Constitutional Challenge to Proposition 22) In addition, in January 2021, a petition was filed with the California Supreme Court by several drivers and a labor union alleging that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional, which was denied. The same drivers and labor union have since filed a similar challenge in California Superior Court, and in August 2021, the Alameda County Superior Court ruled that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional. On September 21, 2021, the State of California filed an appeal of that decision with the California Court of Appeal, and the Protect App-Based Drivers and Services organization, who intervened in the matter, has also filed an appeal. Oral argument was heard on December 13, 2022. On March 13, 2023, the California Court of Appeal overturned a lower court’s ruling that Prop 22 is unconstitutional, which means that Prop 22 remains in effect. Service Employees International Union has petitioned the California Supreme Court for review. The California Supreme Court granted review on June 28, 2023, and has set a briefing schedule. We expect a decision in 2024. Massachusetts Attorney General Lawsuit On July 9, 2020, the Massachusetts Attorney General (“AG”) filed a complaint in Suffolk County Superior Court against Uber and Lyft. The complaint alleges Drivers are employees, and are entitled to protections under the wage and labor laws. The complaint was served on July 20, 2020 and Uber filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on September 24, 2020, which was denied on March 25, 2021. The AG’s Office filed a summary judgment motion in September 2021, and we filed a motion in which we argue that the motion is premature. The court granted our motion to defer the summary judgment motion on January 12, 2022. The AG’s Office has represented that it does not intend to re-file its summary judgment motion, which means the matter will be resolved at trial. Our chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated. New York Attorney General The New York Attorney General has alleged misclassification of Drivers and related employment violations in New York by Uber as well as fraud related to certain deductions. We have reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter. The amount accrued for the resolution of this matter is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2023. Swiss Social Security Rulings Several Swiss administrative bodies have issued decisions in which they classify Drivers as employees of Uber Switzerland, Rasier Operations B.V. or of Uber B.V. for social security or labor purposes. We are challenging each of them before the Social Security and Administrative Tribunals. In April 2021, a ruling was made that Uber Switzerland could not be held liable for social security contributions. The litigations with regards to Uber B.V. and Rasier Operations B.V. are still pending for years 2014 to 2021. In January 2022, the Social Security Tribunal of Zurich reclassified drivers who have used the App in 2014 as dependent workers of Uber B.V. and Rasier Operations B.V. from a social security standpoint and this ruling had been appealed before the Federal Tribunal and had no impact on our current operations. On March 21, 2023, the Federal Tribunal ruled that Drivers who have used the Uber App in 2014 qualify as employees for social security purposes. Further discussions with the social security authorities are in progress. On June 3, 2022, the Federal Tribunal issued two rulings by which both Drivers and Couriers in the Canton of Geneva are classified as employees of Uber B.V., Uber Portier B.V. and Uber Switzerland GmbH. Following the ruling of the Federal Tribunal on Eats, we received an injunction of payment from the SVA Zürich that states that couriers shall be considered employees for social security purposes since the launch of Uber Eats. We reached a settlement with the Canton of Geneva on Rides. The ultimate resolution of the matters before the social security authorities is uncertain and the amount accrued for those matters is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2023. Spain Labor Audits Labor authorities in Spain opened audits reviewing the classification status of Couriers (in particular with regards to social security contributions). We have received assessments as of June 30, 2023. We will proceed (or have proceeded) to appeal to the Court of First Instance and to higher Courts, as applicable, for each of them. There are ongoing audits for which we have not yet received an assessment. Our chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated for these ongoing audits. Other Driver Classification Matters Additionally, we have received other lawsuits and governmental inquiries in other jurisdictions, and anticipate future claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, administrative actions, and government investigations and audits challenging our classification of Drivers as independent contractors and not employees. We believe that our current and historical approach to classification is supported by the law and intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters. However, the results of litigation and arbitration are inherently unpredictable and legal proceedings related to these claims, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Regardless of the outcome, litigation and arbitration of these matters can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs individually and in the aggregate, diversion of management resources and other factors. State Unemployment Taxes New Jersey Department of Labor In 2018, the New Jersey Department of Labor (“NJDOL”) opened an audit reviewing whether Drivers were independent contractors or employees for purposes of determining whether unemployment insurance regulations apply from 2014 through 2018. The NJDOL made an assessment on November 12, 2019, against both Rasier and Uber. Both assessments were calculated through November 15, 2019, but only calculated the alleged contributions, penalties, and interests owed from 2014 through 2018. The NJDOL has provided several assessments from February through October 2021. We have submitted payment for the principal revised amount of the assessment and have since reached agreement on and paid the remaining amounts allegedly owed from 2014 through 2018. The NJ DOL has initiated an audit for the period of 2021 through 2022. The ultimate resolution of the matter is uncertain, and the amount accrued for those matters is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2023. California Employment Development Department In 2014, the California employment development department (“CA EDD”) opened an audit to review whether drivers should be treated as employees or independent contractors. The department issued an assessment in 2016 for the periods of 2013 - 2015 and we have since reached an agreement with the CA EDD for this period. In 2022, we have received requests for information related to an audit of a subsequent period, which covers the fourth quarter of 2017 through the fourth quarter of 2020. We have also received an audit for the years 2018 - 2020 covering couriers who used the Postmates platform and received an assessment in June 2023. We are in the process of appealing the assessment. The ultimate resolution of the matter is uncertain, and the amount accrued for those matters is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2023. New York Department of Labor In February 2020, the New York Department of Labor (“NYDOL”) opened an audit reviewing whether Drivers were independent contractors or employees for purposes of determining whether unemployment insurance regulations apply from 2013 through 2020. The NYDOL issued an assessment in November 2022 against Uber. We have reached an agreement in principle with the NYDOL. The amount accrued for the resolution of this matter is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2023. Non-Income Tax Matters We recorded an estimated liability for contingencies related to non-income tax matters and are under audit by various domestic and foreign tax authorities with regard to such matters. The subject matter of these contingent liabilities and non-income tax audits primarily arise from the characterization for tax purposes of the transactions on the platform, as well as the tax treatment of certain employee benefits and employment taxes related to our Drivers and Couriers. In jurisdictions with disputes connected to transactions on the platform, disputes involve the applicability of transactional taxes (such as sales tax, VAT, GST and similar taxes) or gross receipts taxes. In jurisdictions with disputes connected to employment taxes, disputes involve the applicability of withholding taxes related to employment taxes or back-up withholding on payments made to Drivers, Couriers, and Merchants. Our estimated liability is inherently subjective due to the complexity and uncertainty of these matters and the judicial processes in certain jurisdictions; therefore, the final outcome could be materially different from the estimated liability recorded. United Kingdom As of March 14, 2022, we modified our operating model in the UK, such that as of that date Uber UK is a merchant of transportation and is required to remit VAT. Uber UK is remitting VAT under the Value Added (Tour Operators) Order 1987 (“VAT Order 1987”), which allows for VAT remittance on a calculated margin, rather than on Gross Bookings. In June 2023, we received an assessment from the UK Tax Authorities (“HMRC”) that disputed our application of VAT Order 1987 application for the period of March 2022 to March 2023 and included an assessment of £386 million (approximately $487 million) for unpaid VAT. In July 2023 we paid the assessment in order to proceed with the appeals process. This payment does not represent our acceptance of the assessment. We expect to record this payment as a receivable because we believe that we will be successful in our appeal, upon which, the full amount of our payment will be returned to us with interest upon completion of the appeals process. It is possible that we will receive additional assessments related to prior or future periods, which we will be required to pay in order to continue with the appeals process. Any payments are expected to decrease operating cash flow and have no impact on our results of operations. We plan to vigorously defend our application of the VAT Order 1987 and are waiting to obtain hearing dates from the Tax Tribunal. Brazil In May 2023, we received an assessment for 2019 and 2020 Driver social security contributions from the Brazilian Federal Revenue Bureau (“FRB”). We are contesting the assessment and we filed our administrative appeal with the FRB in June 2023. A negative decision can be appealed at multiple levels. Our chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated. Other Legal and Regulatory Matters We have been and continue to be subject to various government inquiries and investigations surrounding the legality of certain of our business practices, compliance with antitrust, anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws (including Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and other global regulatory requirements, labor laws, securities laws, data protection and privacy laws, consumer protection laws, environmental laws, and the infringement of certain intellectual property rights. We have investigated and continue to investigate many of these matters and we are implementing a number of recommendations to our managerial, operational and compliance practices, as well as strengthening our overall governance structure. In many cases, we are unable to predict the outcomes and implications of these inquiries and investigations on our business, which could be time consuming, costly to investigate, and require significant management attention. Furthermore, the outcome of these inquiries and investigations could negatively impact our business, reputation, financial condition, and operating results, including possible fines and penalties and requiring changes to operational activities and procedures. Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, we often include standard indemnification provisions in our arrangements with third parties. Pursuant to these provisions, we may be obligated to indemnify such parties for losses or claims suffered or incurred in connection with their activities or non-compliance with certain representations and warranties made by us. In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with our officers, directors, and certain current and former employees, and our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain certain indemnification obligations. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions / obligations because of the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular situation.

From time to time, we are a party to various claims, non-income tax audits and litigation in the normal course of business. As of December 31, 2022 and June 30, 2023, we had recorded aggregate liabilities of $1.6 billion and $1.5 billion, respectively, of which $0.6 billion and $0.4 billion, respectively, relate to non-income tax matters in accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets for all of our legal, regulatory and non-income tax matters that were probable and reasonably estimable.

We are currently party to various legal and regulatory matters that have arisen in the normal course of business and include, among others, alleged independent contractor misclassification claims, Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) claims, alleged background check violations, pricing and advertising claims, unfair competition claims, intellectual property claims, employment discrimination and other employment-related claims, Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claims, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims, data and privacy claims, securities claims, antitrust claims, challenges to regulations, and other matters. We have existing litigation, including class actions, Private Attorney General Act lawsuits, arbitration claims, and governmental administrative and audit proceedings, asserting claims by or on behalf of Drivers that Drivers are misclassified as independent contractors. In connection with the enactment of California State Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), we have received and expect to continue to receive - in California and in other jurisdictions - an increased number of misclassification claims. With respect to our outstanding legal and regulatory matters, based on our current knowledge, we believe that the ultimate amount or range of reasonably possible loss will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The outcome of such legal matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. If one or more of these matters were resolved against us for amounts in excess of management's expectations, our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

In January 2020, AB5 went into effect. AB5 codifies a test to determine whether a worker is an employee under California law. The test is referred to as the “ABC” test, and was originally handed down by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court in 2018. Under the ABC test, workers performing services for a hiring entity are considered employees unless the hiring entity can demonstrate three things: the worker (A) is free from the hiring entity’s control, (B) performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and (C) customarily engages in the independent trade, work or type of business performed for the hiring entity.

On May 5, 2020, the California Attorney General, in conjunction with the city attorneys for San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, filed a complaint in San Francisco Superior Court against Uber and Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”). The complaint alleges drivers are misclassified, and seeks an injunction and monetary damages related to the alleged competitive advantage caused by the alleged misclassification of drivers.

On August 10, 2020, the Court issued a preliminary injunction order, prohibiting us from classifying drivers as independent contractors and from violating various wage and hour laws. The injunction was stayed pending appeal. On October 22, 2020, the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s ruling, and we filed a petition for review of the decision with the California Supreme Court. The petition was based upon the passage of Proposition 22 by California voters in November 2020, and requested that the Court of Appeal opinion be vacated because AB5’s application to Uber was superseded by Proposition 22.

Proposition 22 was a state ballot initiative that provides a framework for drivers that use platforms like ours to qualify as independent workers. As a result of the passage of Proposition 22, Drivers are able to maintain their status as independent contractors under California law, and we and our competitors are required to comply with the provisions of Proposition 22. Proposition 22 went into effect on December 16, 2020.

The California Supreme Court declined the petition for review on February 10, 2021. The lawsuit was returned to the trial court following the appellate proceedings on February 22, 2021. On April 12, 2021, the California Attorney General, Uber and Lyft filed a stipulation to dissolve the preliminary injunction with the trial court. On April 16, 2021, the trial court signed an order granting the stipulation. Although the preliminary injunction has been dissolved, the lawsuit remains ongoing relating to claims by the California Attorney General for periods prior to enactment of Proposition 22. We have petitioned to stay this matter pending coordination with other California employment related matters, which was granted and a coordination judge was assigned. Since the assignment of the coordination judge, the case has been stayed pending appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves. Our chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated.

In addition, in January 2021, a petition was filed with the California Supreme Court by several drivers and a labor union alleging that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional, which was denied. The same drivers and labor union have since filed a similar challenge in California Superior Court, and in August 2021, the Alameda County Superior Court ruled that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional. On

On March 13, 2023, the California Court of Appeal overturned a lower court’s ruling that Prop 22 is unconstitutional, which means that Prop 22 remains in effect. Service Employees International Union has petitioned the California Supreme Court for review. The California Supreme Court granted review on June 28, 2023, and has set a briefing schedule. We expect a decision in 2024.

On July 9, 2020, the Massachusetts Attorney General (“AG”) filed a complaint in Suffolk County Superior Court against Uber and Lyft. The complaint alleges Drivers are employees, and are entitled to protections under the wage and labor laws. The complaint was served on July 20, 2020 and Uber filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on September 24, 2020, which was denied on March 25, 2021. The AG’s Office filed a summary judgment motion in September 2021, and we filed a motion in which we argue that the motion is premature. The court granted our motion to defer the summary judgment motion on January 12, 2022. The AG’s Office has represented that it does not intend to re-file its summary judgment motion, which means the matter will be resolved at trial. Our chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated.

The New York Attorney General has alleged misclassification of Drivers and related employment violations in New York by Uber as well as fraud related to certain deductions. We have reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter. The amount accrued for the resolution of this matter is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2023.

In January 2022, the Social Security Tribunal of Zurich reclassified drivers who have used the App in 2014 as dependent workers of Uber B.V. and Rasier Operations B.V. from a social security standpoint and this ruling had been appealed before the Federal Tribunal and had no impact on our current operations. On March 21, 2023, the Federal Tribunal ruled that Drivers who have used the Uber App in 2014 qualify as employees for social security purposes. Further discussions with the social security authorities are in progress.

On June 3, 2022, the Federal Tribunal issued two rulings by which both Drivers and Couriers in the Canton of Geneva are classified as employees of Uber B.V., Uber Portier B.V. and Uber Switzerland GmbH. Following the ruling of the Federal Tribunal on Eats, we received an injunction of payment from the SVA Zürich that states that couriers shall be considered employees for social security purposes since the launch of Uber Eats. We reached a settlement with the Canton of Geneva on Rides.

Labor authorities in Spain opened audits reviewing the classification status of Couriers (in particular with regards to social security contributions). We have received assessments as of June 30, 2023. We will proceed (or have proceeded) to appeal to the Court of First Instance and to higher Courts, as applicable, for each of them. There are ongoing audits for which we have not yet received an assessment. Our chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated for these ongoing audits.

Additionally, we have received other lawsuits and governmental inquiries in other jurisdictions, and anticipate future claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, administrative actions, and government investigations and audits challenging our classification of Drivers as independent contractors and not employees. We believe that our current and historical approach to classification is supported by the law and intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters. However, the results of litigation and arbitration are inherently unpredictable and legal proceedings related to these claims, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Regardless of the outcome, litigation and arbitration of these matters can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs individually and in the aggregate, diversion of management resources and other factors.

In 2018, the New Jersey Department of Labor (“NJDOL”) opened an audit reviewing whether Drivers were independent contractors or employees for purposes of determining whether unemployment insurance regulations apply from 2014 through 2018. The NJDOL made an assessment on November 12, 2019, against both Rasier and Uber. Both assessments were calculated through November 15, 2019, but only calculated the alleged contributions, penalties, and interests owed from 2014 through 2018. The NJDOL has provided several assessments from February through October 2021. We have submitted payment for the principal revised amount of the assessment and have since reached agreement on and paid the remaining amounts allegedly owed from 2014 through 2018.

In 2014, the California employment development department (“CA EDD”) opened an audit to review whether drivers should be treated as employees or independent contractors. The department issued an assessment in 2016 for the periods of 2013 - 2015 and we have since reached an agreement with the CA EDD for this period. In 2022, we have received requests for information related to an audit of a subsequent period, which covers the fourth quarter of 2017 through the fourth quarter of 2020. We have also received an audit for the years 2018 - 2020 covering couriers who used the Postmates platform and received an assessment in June 2023. We are in the process of appealing the assessment. The ultimate resolution of the matter is uncertain, and the amount accrued for those matters is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2023.

In February 2020, the New York Department of Labor (“NYDOL”) opened an audit reviewing whether Drivers were independent contractors or employees for purposes of determining whether unemployment insurance regulations apply from 2013 through 2020. The NYDOL issued an assessment in November 2022 against Uber. We have reached an agreement in principle with the NYDOL. The amount accrued for the resolution of this matter is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2023.

The subject matter of these contingent liabilities and non-income tax audits primarily arise from the characterization for tax purposes of the transactions on the platform, as well as the tax treatment of certain employee benefits and employment taxes related to our Drivers and Couriers. In jurisdictions with disputes connected to transactions on the platform, disputes involve the applicability of transactional taxes (such as sales tax, VAT, GST and similar taxes) or gross receipts taxes. In jurisdictions with disputes connected to employment taxes, disputes involve the applicability of withholding taxes related to employment taxes or back-up withholding on payments made to Drivers, Couriers, and Merchants.

In June 2023, we received an assessment from the UK Tax Authorities (“HMRC”) that disputed our application of VAT Order 1987 application for the period of March 2022 to March 2023 and included an assessment of £386 million (approximately $487 million) for unpaid VAT. In July 2023 we paid the assessment in order to proceed with the appeals process. This payment does not represent our acceptance of the assessment. We expect to record this payment as a receivable because we believe that we will be successful in our appeal, upon which, the full amount of our payment will be returned to us with interest upon completion of the appeals process. It is possible that we will receive additional assessments related to prior or future periods, which we will be required to pay in order to continue with the appeals process. Any payments are expected to decrease operating cash flow and have no impact on our results of operations. We plan to vigorously defend our application of the VAT Order 1987 and are waiting to obtain hearing dates from the Tax Tribunal.

We have been and continue to be subject to various government inquiries and investigations surrounding the legality of certain of our business practices, compliance with antitrust, anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws (including Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and other global regulatory requirements, labor laws, securities laws, data protection and privacy laws, consumer protection laws, environmental laws, and the infringement of certain intellectual property rights. We have investigated and continue to investigate many of these matters and we are implementing a number of recommendations to our managerial, operational and compliance practices, as well as strengthening our overall governance structure. In many cases, we are unable to predict the outcomes and implications of these inquiries and investigations on our business, which could be time consuming, costly to investigate, and require significant management attention. Furthermore, the outcome of these inquiries and investigations could negatively impact our business, reputation, financial condition, and operating results, including possible fines and penalties and requiring changes to operational activities and procedures.

In the ordinary course of business, we often include standard indemnification provisions in our arrangements with third parties. Pursuant to these provisions, we may be obligated to indemnify such parties for losses or claims suffered or incurred in connection with their activities or non-compliance with certain representations and warranties made by us. In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with our officers, directors, and certain current and former employees, and our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain certain indemnification obligations. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions / obligations because of the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular situation.