Note 9  Commitments and Contingencies ? Minimum Guaranteed Royalties and Developer Commitments ? The Company has entered into license and publishing agreements with various celebrities, athletes, sports and entertainment organizations, and other well-known brands and properties to develop and publish games for mobile devices. Pursuant to some of these agreements, the Company is required to make minimum guaranteed royalty payments regardless of revenue generated by the applicable game, which may not be dependent on any deliverables. The significant majority of these minimum guaranteed royalty payments are recoupable against future royalty obligations that would otherwise become payable, or in certain circumstances, where not recoupable, are capitalized and amortized over the lesser of (1) the estimated life of the title incorporating licensed content or (2) the term of the license agreement. ? At September 30, 2019, future unpaid minimum guaranteed royalty commitments were as follows: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Future ? ? Minimum ? ? Guarantee ? Commitments 2019 (remaining 3 months) ? $ 226 2020 ? 11,450 2021 ? ? 10,150 2022 ? ? 6,150 2023 and thereafter ? ? 12,300 ? ? $ 40,276 ? The amounts included in the table above reflect the Companys minimum cash obligations for the respective calendar years, but do not necessarily represent the periods in which they will be expensed in the Companys consolidated financial statements. ? Licensor commitments include $40,276 of commitments due to licensors that have been recorded in current and long-term liabilities and a corresponding amount in current and long-term assets because payment is not contingent upon performance by the licensor. The classification of commitments between long-term and short-term is determined based on the timing of expected recoupment of earned royalties calculated on projected revenue for the licensed intellectual property games. ? Indemnification Arrangements ? The Company has entered into agreements under which it indemnifies each of its officers and directors during his or her lifetime for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is or was serving at the Companys request in that capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that limits its exposure and enables the Company to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. ? In the ordinary course of its business, the Company includes standard indemnification provisions in most of its commercial agreements with Digital Storefronts and licensors. Pursuant to these provisions, the Company generally indemnifies these parties for losses suffered or incurred in connection with its games, including as a result of intellectual property infringement, viruses, worms and other malicious software, and legal or regulatory violations. The term of these indemnity provisions is generally perpetual after execution of the corresponding license agreement, and the maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these provisions is often unlimited. To date, the Company has not incurred costs to defend lawsuits or settle indemnified claims of these types and, accordingly, has recorded no liabilities for these provisions as of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018. ? Contingencies ? From time to time, the Company is subject to various claims, complaints and legal actions in the normal course of business. The Company assesses its potential liability by analyzing specific litigation and regulatory matters using available information. The Companys estimate of losses is developed in consultation with inside and outside counsel, which involves a subjective analysis of potential results and outcomes, assuming various combinations of appropriate litigation and settlement strategies. After taking all of the above factors into account, the Company determines whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be accrued by assessing whether a loss is deemed reasonably probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company further determines whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be disclosed by assessing whether a material loss is deemed reasonably possible. Such disclosure will include an estimate of the additional loss or range of loss or will state that an estimate cannot be made. ? On March 14, 2018, Jeffrey Tseng, the former Chief Executive Officer of Crowdstar, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara against Time Warner Inc., Rachel Lam, Intel Capital Corporation, Middlefield Ventures Inc. and Jose Blanc (collectively, the Non-Glu Defendants), the Company and additional yet-to-be-named defendants. The complaint alleged (i) breach of fiduciary duty by the Non-Glu Defendants, (ii) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty by the Company and (iii) intentional interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and unfair competition by each of the defendants, in each case relating to circumstances arising from the Companys acquisition of Crowdstar and the events leading up to the acquisition. Mr. Tseng was seeking compensatory damages and exemplary damages, each in an amount to be determined at trial, along with costs of suit, reasonable attorneys fees and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. The Company and the Non-Glu Defendants filed demurrers in response to Mr. Tsengs complaint on August 17, 2018, Mr. Tseng filed responses to these demurrers on September 17, 2018, and the Company and the Non-Glu Defendants filed reply briefs in support of their demurrers on October 15, 2018. A hearing with respect to the demurrers was held on November 30, 2018. On January 24, 2019, the judge issued an order sustaining the demurrers on all six claims and gave Mr. Tseng 10 days leave to amend his complaint. On March 4, 2019, the Company, the Non-Glu Defendants and Mr. Tseng entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which Mr. Tseng, on one hand, and the Company and the Non-Glu Defendants, on the other hand, provided mutual releases of claims related to the subject matter of Mr. Tsengs lawsuit and Mr. Tseng agreed to dismiss his lawsuit with prejudice. The Company did not pay any amounts to Mr. Tseng in settlement of this matter. Mr. Tseng dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice on March 6, 2019 and, accordingly, the Company considers this matter to be resolved. The Company does not believe it is party to any currently pending litigation, the outcome of which is reasonably possible to have a material adverse effect on its operations, financial position or liquidity. However, the ultimate outcome of any litigation is uncertain and, regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense costs, potential negative publicity, diversion of management resources and other factors.