Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

x      QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012

Or

o         TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from               to               

Commission file number: 000-49799

OVERSTOCK.COM, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

6350 South 3000 East

Salt Lake City, Utah 84121

(Address, including zip code, of Registrant’s principal executive offices)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (801) 947-3100

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x  No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x  No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the act). Yes o No x

There were 23,447,391 shares of the Registrant’s common stock, par value $0.0001, outstanding on October 25, 2012.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

PART 1. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)

Overstock.com, Inc.

Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited)

(in thousands)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

Overstock.com, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss)

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per share data)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

Overstock.com, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

Overstock.com, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Unaudited)

(in thousands)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

6

Table of Contents

Overstock.com, Inc.

Notes to Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements

1. BASIS OF PRESENTATION

As used herein, “Overstock.com,” “we,” “our” and similar terms include Overstock.com, Inc. and its subsidiaries, unless the context indicates otherwise. The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared by us pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) regarding interim financial reporting. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements and should be read in conjunction with Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and our audited annual consolidated financial statements and related notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011. The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, which are, in our opinion, necessary for a fair presentation of results for the interim periods presented. Preparing financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts that are reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying disclosures. Although these estimates are based on our best knowledge of current events and actions that we may undertake in the future, actual results may be different from the estimates. The results of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for any future period or the full fiscal year.

2. ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Principles of consolidation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements include our accounts and the accounts of our wholly-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany account balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

Use of estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosures of contingent liabilities in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Estimates are used for, but not limited to, investment valuation, receivables valuation, revenue recognition, sales returns, incentive discount offers, inventory valuation, depreciable lives of fixed assets and internally-developed software, goodwill valuation, intangible valuation, income taxes, stock-based compensation, performance-based compensation, restructuring liabilities and contingencies. Actual results could differ materially from those estimates.

Cash equivalents

We classify all highly liquid instruments, including money market funds with a remaining maturity of three months or less at the time of purchase, as cash equivalents. Cash equivalents were $48.1 million and $81.2 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

Restricted cash

We consider cash that is legally restricted and cash that is held as a compensating balance for letter of credit arrangements as restricted cash. Restricted cash was $2.1 million and $2.0 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, and was held primarily in cash.

Fair value of financial instruments

Our financial instruments, including cash, cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued liabilities are carried at cost, which approximates their fair value because of the short-term maturity of these instruments. We are party to a Financing Agreement with U.S. Bank dated December 22, 2009 (as amended to date, the “Financing Agreement”). Our Financing Agreement is also carried at face value, which approximates its fair value due to its variable interest rate.

We account for our assets and liabilities using a hierarchy of valuation techniques based on whether the inputs to those valuation techniques are observable or unobservable. Observable inputs reflect market data obtained from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect our market assumptions. These two types of inputs have created the following fair-value hierarchy:

·                  Level 1—Quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets;

·                  Level 2—Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, and model-derived valuations in which all significant inputs and significant value drivers are

7

Table of Contents

observable in active markets; and

·                  Level 3—Valuations derived from valuation techniques in which one or more significant inputs or significant value drivers are unobservable.

This hierarchy requires us to minimize the use of unobservable inputs and to use observable market data, if available, when determining fair value.

The fair value of these financial instruments was determined using the following levels of inputs as of September 30, 2012 (in thousands):

The fair value of these financial instruments was determined using the following levels of inputs as of December 31, 2011 (in thousands):

(1)  — Trading securities held in a rabbi trust are included in Other current and long-term assets in the consolidated balance sheets.

(2)  — The fair value was determined based on the income approach, in which we used internal cash flow projections over the life of the underlying lease agreement discounted based on a credit adjusted risk-free rate of return. See the roll forward related to the restructuring accrual at Note 3—Restructuring Expense.

(3) — Non qualified deferred compensation for rabbi trust is included in Accrued liabilities and Other long-term liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.

Restricted investments

In December 2009, we implemented a Non Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the “NQDC Plan”) for senior management. Deferred compensation amounts are invested in mutual funds held in a “rabbi trust” and are restricted for payment to the participants of the NQDC Plan. We account for our investments held in the trust in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) No. 320 “Investments — Debt and Equity Securities”. The investments held in the trust are classified as trading securities. The fair value of the investments held in the trust totaled $248,000 at September 30, 2012 and are included in Other current and long-term assets in the consolidated balance sheets. Our gains and losses on these investments were immaterial for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011.

Accounts receivable

Accounts receivable consist primarily of trade amounts due from customers and from uncleared credit card transactions at period end. Accounts receivable are recorded at invoiced amounts and do not bear interest.

8

Table of Contents

Allowance for doubtful accounts

From time to time, we grant credit to some of our business customers on normal credit terms (typically 30 days). We perform credit evaluations of our business customers’ financial condition and payment history and maintain an allowance for doubtful accounts receivable based upon our historical collection experience and expected collectability of accounts receivable. The allowance for doubtful accounts receivable was $738,000 and $574,000 at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

Concentration of credit risk

Cash equivalents include short-term, highly liquid instruments with maturities at date of purchase of three months or less. At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, two banks held the majority of our cash and cash equivalents. We do not believe that, as a result of this concentration, we are subject to any unusual financial risk beyond the normal risk associated with commercial banking relationships.

Financial instruments that potentially subject us to significant concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash equivalents and receivables. We invest our cash primarily in money market securities which are uninsured.

Our accounts receivable are derived primarily from revenue earned from customers located in the United States. We maintain an allowance for doubtful accounts based upon the expected collectability of accounts receivable.

Valuation of inventories

Inventories, consisting of merchandise purchased for resale, are accounted for using a standard costing system which approximates the first-in-first-out (“FIFO”) method of accounting, and are valued at the lower of cost or market. We write down our inventory for estimated obsolescence and to lower of cost or market value based upon assumptions about future demand and market conditions. If actual market conditions are less favorable than those projected by management, additional inventory write-downs may be required. Once established, the original cost of the inventory less the related inventory allowance represents the new cost basis of such products. Reversal of the allowance is recognized only when the related inventory has been sold or scrapped.

Prepaid inventories, net

Prepaid inventories represent inventories paid for in advance of receipt. Prepaid inventories were $1.7 million and $1.0 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

Prepaids and other assets

Prepaids and other assets represent expenses paid prior to receipt of the related goods or services, including advertising, license fees, maintenance, packaging, insurance, and other miscellaneous costs, as well as investments in precious metals. Total prepaids and other assets were $13.6 million and $12.7 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

Fixed assets

Fixed assets, which include assets such as technology infrastructure, internal-use software, website development, furniture and fixtures and leasehold improvements, are recorded at cost and depreciated using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the related assets or the term of the related capital lease, whichever is shorter, as follows:

Leasehold improvements are amortized over the shorter of the term of the related leases or estimated useful lives.

9

Table of Contents

Depreciation and amortization expense is classified within the corresponding operating expense categories on the consolidated statements of operations as follows (in thousands):

Internal-use software and website development

Included in fixed assets is the capitalized cost of internal-use software and website development, including software used to upgrade and enhance our Website and processes supporting our business. We capitalize costs incurred during the application development stage of internal-use software and amortize these costs over the estimated useful life of two to three years. Costs incurred related to design or maintenance of internal-use software are expensed as incurred.

During the three months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, we capitalized $3.0 million and $2.3 million, respectively, of costs associated with internal-use software and website development, both developed internally and acquired externally. Amortization of costs associated with internal-use software and website development was $2.0 million and $2.1 million for those respective periods. During the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, we capitalized $6.8 million and $7.8 million, respectively, of such costs and had amortization of $6.3 million and $6.1 million for those respective periods.

Revenue recognition

We derive our revenue primarily from two sources: direct revenue and fulfillment partner revenue, including listing fees and commissions collected from products being listed and sold through our cars listing business, and from advertising on our shopping, travel and insurance pages. We have organized our operations into two principal segments based on the primary source of revenue: direct revenue and fulfillment partner revenue (see Note 8—Business Segments).

Revenue is recognized when the following revenue recognition criteria are met: (1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; (2) delivery has occurred or the service has been provided; (3) the selling price or fee revenue earned is fixed or determinable; and (4) collection of the resulting receivable is reasonably assured. Revenue related to merchandise sales is recognized upon delivery to our customers. As we ship high volumes of packages through multiple carriers, it is not practical for us to track the actual delivery date of each shipment. Therefore, we use estimates to determine which shipments are delivered and, therefore, recognized as revenue at the end of the period. Our delivery date estimates are based on average shipping transit times, which are calculated using the following factors: (i) the type of shipping carrier (as carriers have different in-transit times); (ii) the fulfillment source (either our warehouses or those of our fulfillment partners); (iii) the delivery destination; and (iv) actual transit time experience, which shows that delivery date is typically one to eight business days from the date of shipment. We review and update our estimates on a quarterly basis based on our actual transit time experience. However, actual shipping times may differ from our estimates.

We evaluate the criteria outlined in ASC Topic 605-45, Principal Agent Considerations, in determining whether it is appropriate to record the gross amount of product sales and related costs or the net amount earned as commissions. When we are the primary obligor in a transaction, are subject to inventory risk, have latitude in establishing prices and selecting suppliers, or have several but not all of these indicators, revenue is recorded gross. If we are not the primary obligor in the transaction and amounts earned are determined using a fixed percentage, revenue is recorded on a net basis. Currently, the majority of both direct revenue and fulfillment partner revenue is recorded on a gross basis, as we are the primary obligor. We present revenue net of sales taxes.

We periodically provide incentive offers to our customers to encourage purchases. Such offers include current discount offers, such as percentage discounts off current purchases and other similar offers, which, when used by customers, are treated as a reduction of revenue.

Based upon our historical experience, revenue typically increases during the fourth quarter because of the holiday retail season.

Direct revenue

Direct revenue is derived from merchandise sales to individual consumers and businesses that are fulfilled from our leased warehouses. Direct revenue comes from sales that occur primarily through our Website, but may also occur through offline channels.

10

Table of Contents

Fulfillment partner revenue

Fulfillment partner revenue is derived from merchandise sales through our Website which fulfillment partners ship directly to consumers and businesses from warehouses maintained by our fulfillment partners.

Fulfillment partner revenue also includes revenue from our other businesses, which include our online site for listing cars for sale, our travel shopping site, our insurance shopping site, our consignment service to suppliers, our online auction site (which was removed from our site in July 2011) and our online site for listing real estate for sale (which was removed from our site in June 2011). Revenue from our other businesses is less than 1% of total net revenues.

Club O loyalty program

We have a customer loyalty program called Club O for which we sell annual memberships. We record membership fees as deferred revenue and we recognize revenue ratably over the membership period. The Club O loyalty program allows members to earn reward dollars for qualifying purchases made on our Website. We also have a co-branded credit card program (see “Co-branded credit card revenue” below for more information). Co-branded cardholders are also Club O members and earn additional reward dollars for purchases made on our Website, and from other merchants. Reward dollars earned may be redeemed on future purchases made through our Website. Club O reward dollars expire 90 days after the customer’s Club O membership expires. We account for these transactions as multiple element arrangements and allocate value to the elements using their relative fair values. We include the value of reward dollars earned in deferred revenue and we record it as a reduction of revenue at the time the reward dollars are earned.

We recognize revenue for Club O reward dollars when customers redeem their reward dollars as part of a purchase at our Website. We recognize other income when Club O reward dollars expire or the likelihood of reward dollars being redeemed by a customer is remote (“reward dollar breakage”). Due to the loyalty program’s short history, currently no reward dollar breakage is recognized until the reward dollars expire. However, in the future we plan to recognize such breakage based upon historical redemption patterns.

In instances where customers receive free Club O reward dollars not associated with any purchases, we account for these transactions as sales incentives such as coupons and record a reduction of revenue at the time the reward dollars are redeemed.

Co-branded credit card program

We have entered into a co-branded credit card agreement with a commercial bank for the issuance of credit cards bearing the Overstock.com brand, under which the bank pays us fees for new accounts and for customer usage of the cards. The agreement also provides for a customer loyalty program offering reward points that customers will accrue from card usage and can use to make purchases on our Website (See “Club O loyalty program” above for more information). New account fees are recognized as revenue on a straight-line basis over the estimated life of the credit card relationship. Credit card usage fees are recognized as revenues as actual credit card usage occurs.

Deferred revenue

Customer orders are recorded as deferred revenue prior to delivery of products or services ordered. We record amounts received for Club O membership fees as deferred revenue and we recognize it ratably over the membership period. We record Club O reward dollars earned from purchases as deferred revenue at the time they are earned and we recognize it as revenue upon redemption. If reward dollars are not redeemed, we recognize revenue upon expiration. In addition, we sell gift cards and record related deferred revenue at the time of the sale. We sell gift cards without expiration dates and we recognize revenue from a gift card upon redemption of the gift card. If a gift card is not redeemed, we recognize income when the likelihood of its redemption becomes remote based on our historical redemption experience. We consider the likelihood of redemption to be remote after 36 months.

Sales returns allowance

We inspect returned items when they arrive at our processing facility. We refund the full cost of the merchandise returned and all original shipping charges if the returned item is defective or we or our fulfillment partners have made an error, such as shipping the wrong product.

If the return is not a result of a product defect or a fulfillment error and the customer initiates a return of an unopened item within 30 days of delivery, for most products we refund the full cost of the merchandise minus the original shipping charge and actual return shipping fees. However, we reduce refunds for returns initiated more than 30 days after delivery or that are received at our returns processing facility more than 45 days after initial delivery.

11

Table of Contents

If our customer returns an item that has been opened or shows signs of wear, we issue a partial refund minus the original shipping charge and actual return shipping fees.

Revenue is recorded net of estimated returns. We record an allowance for returns based on current period revenues and historical returns experience. We analyze actual historical returns, current economic trends and changes in order volume and acceptance of our products when evaluating the adequacy of the sales returns allowance in any accounting period.

The allowance for returns was $6.3 million and $10.9 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 respectively. The decrease in allowance for returns at September 30, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011 is primarily due to decreased revenues mostly due to seasonality.

Credit card chargeback allowance

Revenue is recorded net of credit card chargebacks. We maintain an allowance for credit card chargebacks based on current period revenues and historical chargeback experience. The allowance for chargebacks was $157,000 and $187,000 at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

Cost of goods sold

Cost of goods sold includes product costs, warehousing costs, outbound shipping costs, handling and fulfillment costs, customer service costs and credit card fees, and is recorded in the same period in which related revenues have been recorded. Cost of goods sold, including product cost and other costs and fulfillment and related costs are as follows (in thousands):

Advertising expense

We expense the costs of producing advertisements the first time the advertising takes place and expense the cost of communicating advertising in the period during which the advertising space or airtime is used. Internet advertising expenses are recognized as incurred based on the terms of the individual agreements, which are generally: 1) a commission for traffic driven to the Website that generates a sale or 2) a referral fee based on the number of clicks on keywords or links to our Website generated during a given period. Advertising expense is included in sales and marketing expenses and totaled $12.8 million and $11.7 million during the three months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. For the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, advertising expenses totaled $37.0 million and $35.9 million, respectively. Prepaid advertising, which consists primarily of prepaid advertising airtime, (included in Prepaids and other assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets) was $2.1 million and $1.4 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

Stock-based compensation

We measure compensation expense for all outstanding unvested share-based awards at fair value on date of grant and recognize compensation expense over the service period for awards expected to vest on a straight line basis. The estimation of stock awards that will ultimately vest requires judgment, and to the extent actual results differ from estimates, such amounts will be recorded as an adjustment in the period estimates are revised. We consider many factors when estimating expected forfeitures, including types of awards, and historical experience. Actual results may differ substantially from these estimates (see Note 7—Stock-Based Awards).

Loss contingencies

In the normal course of business, we are involved in legal proceedings and other potential loss contingencies. We accrue a liability for such matters when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When only a range of possible loss can be estimated, the most probable amount in the range is accrued. If no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other amount within the range, the minimum amount in the range is accrued. We expense legal fees as incurred.

12

Table of Contents

Restructuring

Restructuring expenses are primarily comprised of lease termination costs. ASC Topic 420, Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities, requires that when an entity ceases using a property that is leased under an operating lease before the end of the contractual term, the termination costs should be recognized and measured at fair value when the entity ceases using the facility. Key assumptions in determining the restructuring expenses include the terms that may be negotiated to exit certain contractual obligations (see Note 3—Restructuring Expense).

Income taxes

Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred income tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax basis using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to affect taxable income.

Deferred tax assets are evaluated for future realization and are reduced by a valuation allowance to the extent that it is more likely than not that the deferred tax asset will not be realized. We consider many factors when assessing the likelihood of future realization of our deferred assets including expectations of future taxable income, the carry-forward periods available for tax reporting purposes, the reversals of our deferred tax liabilities and tax planning strategies, to the extent available. At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we have a full valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets, net of expected reversals of existing deferred tax liabilities, as we believe it is more likely than not that these benefits will not be realized. Significant judgment is required in making this assessment, and it is very difficult to predict when, if ever, our assessment may conclude that the remaining portion of the deferred tax assets are realizable.

Earnings (loss) per share

Basic earnings (loss) per share is computed by dividing net income (loss) attributable to common shares by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings (loss) per share is computed by dividing net income (loss) attributable to common shares for the period by the weighted average number of common and potential common shares outstanding during the period. Potential common shares, comprising incremental common shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options, restricted stock awards and convertible senior notes are included in the calculation of diluted earnings (loss) per common share to the extent such shares are dilutive.

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net income (loss) per common share for the periods indicated (in thousands, except per share data):

13

Table of Contents

The following shares were excluded from the calculation of diluted shares outstanding as their effect would have been anti-dilutive (in thousands):

Accounting pronouncements issued not yet adopted

In July 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued accounting pronouncement No. 2012-02, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other (FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 350) permits an entity to make a qualitative assessment to determine whether it is more likely than not that an indefinite-lived intangible asset, other than goodwill, is impaired. The Accounting Standard Update applies to both public and nonpublic entities and is effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012. We do not expect this pronouncement to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

3. RESTRUCTURING EXPENSE

During the fourth quarter of 2006, we began a facilities consolidation and restructuring program designed to reduce the overall expense structure in an effort to improve future operating performance. The facilities consolidation and restructuring program was substantially completed by the end of the second quarter of 2007.

Restructuring liabilities along with charges (credits) to expense and payments associated with the facilities consolidation and restructuring program are as follows (in thousands):

We reversed $45,000 of lease termination costs during the three months ended September 30, 2012 due to changes in our estimate of sublease income as a result of our entering into a new sublease agreement. We incurred $53,000 of lease termination costs during the nine months ended September 30, 2012 due to ceasing the use of some of our office facilities and changes in the estimate of sublease income as a result of our entering into a new sublease agreement. There were no restructuring charges or reversals during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011.

4. BORROWINGS

U.S. Bank Financing Agreements

We are a party to a Financing Agreement with U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) dated December 22, 2009 (as amended to date, the “Financing Agreement”). The maximum credit potentially available under the revolving facility is $20 million. Our obligations under the Financing Agreement and all related agreements are secured by all or substantially all of our assets, excluding our interest in certain litigation. Subject to certain exceptions, the full amount of the revolving facility is expected to be available to us as long as $20 million in the aggregate is maintained on deposit with U.S. Bank. At September 30, 2012 and at the date of this report we maintain $20 million on deposit with U.S. Bank. The obligation of U.S. Bank to make advances under the Financing Agreement is subject to the conditions set forth in the Financing Agreement.

Our failure to keep at least $20 million on deposit in certain accounts with U.S. Bank would constitute a “triggering event” under the Financing Agreement. If a triggering event occurs, we would become subject to financial covenants (i) limiting our capital expenditures to $20 million annually, and (ii) requiring us to maintain a Financing Agreement defined fixed charges coverage ratio of at least 1.10 to 1.00 as of the end of any fiscal quarter for the period of the prior four quarters. The occurrence of a triggering event could also result in a decrease in the amount available to us under the non cash-collateralized portion of the facility, as availability would then depend, in part, on the Borrowing Base (as defined in the Financing Agreement).

The stated termination date of the Financing Agreement is December 31, 2012. The maximum amount potentially available under the Financing Agreement is $20 million, limited to $3 million for cash-collateralized letters of credit and other financial accommodations, and $17 million for advances supported by our non-cash collateral.

14

Table of Contents

Advances under the Financing Agreement bear interest at one-month LIBOR plus 2.5%. The interest rate for borrowings under the Financing Agreement was 2.75% at September 30, 2012. We have also entered into an interest rate cap agreement with U.S. Bank with an effective date of October 1, 2011 limiting our exposure for one-month LIBOR at 0.5% for the term of the Financing Agreement.

The Financing Agreement includes affirmative and negative covenants that prohibit a variety of actions without the approval of U.S. Bank, including, without limitation, covenants that (subject to certain exceptions) limit our ability to (a) incur or guarantee debt or enter into indemnity agreements, (b) create or permit liens, (c) enter into any merger or consolidation or purchase or otherwise acquire all or substantially all of the assets of another person or the assets comprising any line of business or business unit of another person, (d) except for permitted acquisitions, purchase the securities of, create, invest in, or form any subsidiary (other than permitted subsidiaries) or other entity, (e) make loans or advances, (f) purchase, acquire or redeem shares of our capital stock or other securities, (g) change our capital structure or issue any new class of capital stock, (h) change our business objectives, purposes or operations in a manner which could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect, (i) change our fiscal year, (j) enter into transactions with affiliates (other than in connection with allowed intercompany transactions), (k) sell assets except for the sale of inventory or equipment in the ordinary course of business, (l) permit judgments to be rendered against us in excess of certain limits or having specified effects, depending in part on whether a triggering event has occurred or would occur, (m) take certain actions regarding our receivables, and (n) take certain actions regarding our inventory.

Amounts outstanding under the Financing Agreement were $17.0 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, and letters of credit totaling $1.9 million and $2.0 million, respectively, were issued on our behalf collateralized by compensating cash balances held at U.S. Bank, which are included in Restricted cash in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. At September 30, 2012, we had $20.0 million in compensating cash balances held at U.S. Bank. If we draw on the $20.0 million compensating cash balance, it will constitute a triggering event and result in additional and more restrictive covenants.

U.S. Bank Commercial Purchasing Card Agreement

We have a commercial purchasing card (the “Purchasing Card”) agreement with U.S. Bank. We use the Purchasing Card for business purpose purchasing and must pay it in full each month. At September 30, 2012, $2.2 million was outstanding and $2.8 million was available under the Purchasing Card. At December 31, 2011, $3.4 million was outstanding and $1.6 million was available under the Purchasing Card.

5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Summary of future minimum lease payments for all operating leases

Minimum future payments under all operating leases as of September 30, 2012, are as follows (in thousands):

Rental expense for operating leases totaled $2.1 million and $2.0 million for the three months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively and $6.5 million and $6.1 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Estimated sublease income of $875,000 is expected over the next three years of which $379,000 is anticipated to be received in the next 12 months.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are involved in litigation concerning consumer protection, employment, intellectual property and other commercial matters related to the conduct and operation of our business and the sale of products on our Website. In connection with such litigation, we may be subject to significant damages. In some instances other parties may have contractual indemnification obligations to us. However, such contractual obligations may prove unenforceable or non-collectible, and in the event we cannot enforce or collect on indemnification obligations, we may bear the full responsibility for damages, fees and costs resulting from such litigation. We may also be subject to equitable remedies and penalties. Such litigation could be costly and time consuming and could divert or distract our management and key personnel from our business operations. Due to the uncertainty of litigation and depending on the amount and the timing, an unfavorable resolution of some or all of these matters could materially affect our business, results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

15

Table of Contents

On February 2, 2007, along with five shareholder plaintiffs, we filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco against Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Goldman Sachs & Co., Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Bank of America Securities LLC, Bank of New York, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse (USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and UBS Financial Services, Inc., and later amended the complaint to add Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. as a defendant. The suit alleged that the defendants, who controlled over 80% of the prime brokerage market, participated in an illegal stock market manipulation scheme and that the defendants had no intention of covering short sell orders with borrowed stock, as they are required to do, causing what are referred to as “fails to deliver” and that the defendants’ actions caused and continued to cause dramatic declines in the share price of our stock and that the amount of “fails to deliver” often exceeded our entire supply of outstanding shares. The suit accused the defendants of violations of California securities laws and common law and violations of California’s Unfair Business Practices Act. After it filed for bankruptcy on September 2008, we elected not to pursue our claims against Lehman Brothers Holdings. On July 23, 2009, the court sustained defendants’ demurrer to our amended causes of action for conversion and trespass to chattels. On December 15, 2010, we and the other plaintiffs in the case entered into a settlement agreement with certain of the defendants requiring these defendants to pay in the aggregate $4.5 million to plaintiffs. Other terms of settlement are confidential. At that time, remaining defendants in the suit were Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing L.P., (“Goldman Defendants”) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation (“Merrill Lynch Defendants), and Bank of America Securities LLC. On December 15, 2010, we filed a motion to amend our complaint against the Goldman and Merrill Lynch Defendants to add a cause of action based on the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act. Defendants challenged the RICO claim by demurrer and eventually the court sustained the demurrer. We thereafter entered a settlement agreement with Bank of America Securities LLC, the terms of which are confidential, and have dismissed the action as to that defendant. On August 19, 2011, the remaining defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On January 10, 2012 the court granted the motion for summary judgment as to all remaining defendants and judgment has been entered. We have appealed. The defendants have applied to the court for reimbursement from us of their allowable court costs in the collective amount of $2.4 million. We believe the full amount applied for is excessive and not permissible under California law. In the trial court we have contested the requested costs amount. The court has not heard arguments on the disputed costs amount. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to any court costs ordered against us are described above.

On May 30, 2008 we filed a complaint in New York state court against the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, its Commissioner, the State of New York and its governor, alleging that a New York state tax law is unconstitutional. The effect of the New York law is to require Internet sellers to collect and remit New York sales taxes on their New York sales even if the seller has no New York tax “nexus” other than with New York based independent contractors who are Internet advertising affiliates. The complaint asks for the court to declare the law unconstitutional and enjoin its application to us. New York filed a motion to dismiss. We responded to the motion and filed a motion for summary judgment, and both motions were heard simultaneously. On January 12, 2009, the court granted New York’s motion to dismiss and denied our motion for summary judgment. We appealed the decision and on November 4, 2010 the New York Appellate Division upheld part of the lower court’s ruling rejecting our claims that the law is unconstitutional on its face, but remanded our claims that the law is unconstitutional as applied, for further discovery and proceedings in the lower court. We filed with the New York State Court of Appeals a motion of leave to appeal the portions of the decision upholding the lower court’s ruling. On March 15, 2011, the Appellate Division of the New York State Court of Appeals denied our motion for leave to appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals. We have determined not to pursue at the trial court level our claims that the law is unconstitutional as applied. We proceeded with an appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals of the Appellate Division’s ruling on our claim that the statute is unconstitutional on its face. On March 26, 2012, the court agreed to hear the case. The New York State Court of Appeals has not yet heard the case.

On August 12, 2008, we along with seven other defendants, were sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by Sean Lane, and seventeen other individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly in a class action suit, alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Computer Crime Law. The complaint relates to our use of a product known as Facebook Beacon, created and provided to us by Facebook, Inc. Facebook Beacon provided the means for Facebook users to share purchasing data among their Facebook friends. The parties extended by agreement the time for defendants’ answer, including our answer, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated settlement to the court for approval, which would resolve the case without requirement of financial contribution from us. On March 17, 2010, over objections lodged by some parties, the court entered an order accepting settlement. Various parties appealed and on September 20, 2012 the Federal Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit upheld the settlement. It is unknown whether the parties will seek further appeal. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made.

On November 14, 2008, we filed suit in Ohio state court against the Ohio Tax Commissioner, the Ohio Attorney General and the Governor of Ohio, alleging the Ohio Commercial Activity Tax is unconstitutional. Enacted in 2005, Ohio’s Commercial Activity Tax is based on activities in Ohio that contribute to production or gross income for a company whether or not the company has a physical presence in or nexus within the state. Our complaint asked for a judgment declaring the tax unconstitutional and for an injunction preventing any enforcement of the tax. The defendants moved to dismiss the case. On July 28, 2009, the trial court ruled that there was no justiciable controversy in the case, as we had not yet been assessed a tax, and it granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. In September 2009, we received a letter of determination from the Ohio Department of Taxation noting the Department’s determination

16

Table of Contents

that we are required to register for remitting of the Commercial Activity Tax, and owe $612,784 in taxes, interest, and penalties as of June 30, 2009. The Ohio Department of Taxation issued additional estimated assessments of estimated tax, interest and penalties totaling $121,958 as of December 31, 2011.We have filed protests to challenge the Department’s Assessments on constitutional grounds and the matter is currently pending before the Ohio Department of Taxation’s Legal Division for administrative review and determination. A hearing on these matters was held November 18, 2011. No administrative ruling has been issued following the hearing. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. We believe the determinations to be unlawful and erroneous and are vigorously contesting the determination.

On March 10, 2009, we were sued in a class action filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. Cynthia Hines, the nominative plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims for breach of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer fraud laws. The Plaintiff alleges we failed to properly disclose our returns policy to her and that we improperly imposed a “restocking” charge on her return of a vacuum cleaner. We filed a motion to dismiss based upon assertions that our agreement with our customers requires all such actions to be arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah. Alternatively, we asked that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Utah, so that arbitration may be compelled in that district. On September 8, 2009 the motion to dismiss or transfer was denied, the court stating that our browsewrap agreement was insufficient under New York law to establish an agreement with the customer to arbitrate disputes in Utah. On October 8, 2009, we filed a Notice of Appeal of the court’s ruling. The appeal was denied. On December 31, 2010 Hines filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint eliminated common law fraud claims and breach of contract claims and added claims for breach of Utah’s consumer protection statute and various other state consumer protection statutes. The amended complaint also asks for an injunction. The suit is in final discovery stages. We filed motions to dismiss and to decertify the class. The court has not ruled on these motions. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action.

On September 23, 2009, SpeedTrack, Inc. sued us along with 27 other defendants in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California. We are alleged to have infringed a patent covering search and categorization software. We believe that certain third party vendors of products and services sold to us are contractually obligated to indemnify us in this action. On November 11, 2009, the parties stipulated to stay all proceedings in the case until resolution of a the United States Patent and Trademark Office had concluded and resolved a reexamination of the patent in question, and also until a previously filed infringement action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and other retailers resulted either in judgment or dismissal. Subsequently, the parties agreed to extend the time for defendants’ complaint answer until 21 days following a court order to lift the stay to which the parties stipulated. The United States Patent and Trademark Office resolved the reexamination of the patent in question in favor of SpeedTrack, Inc. The case remains stayed, pending the outcome of the infringement action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and other retailers. On February 22, 2012, the court in the Wal-Mart Stores case granted Wal-Mart Stores’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The court also granted Speedtrack’s motion for summary judgment on patent validity. It is not known whether the summary judgments granted in the Wal-Mart Stores case will have an effect on the Speedtrack case in which we are named as one of the defendants. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are described above. However no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. We intend to vigorously defend this action and pursue our indemnification rights with our vendors.

On or about September 25, 2009, Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. filed suit against us and 12 other defendants in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. We are alleged to have infringed three patents purportedly related to a communications protocol between a user and server terminals, text input functionalities and search processes. We believe a third party vendor of search products and services sold to us is contractually obligated to indemnify us in this action as it pertains to the search patent. On October 14, 2011, a jury returned a verdict in our favor, finding non-infringement on all asserted claims, on all patents, and finding of invalidity of the Alcatel-Lucent patent, having to do with a communications protocol. On November 29, 2011, Alcatel-Lucent filed a motion for a new trial which was denied. Alcatel-Lucent has filed an appeal which we will oppose.

On May 11, 2010, Site Update Solutions, LLC filed suit against us and 34 other defendants in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Texas (now transferred to the Northern District of California) for infringement of a patent claiming “a process for maintaining ongoing registration for pages on a given search engine . . . a method to actively cause an updating of a specific Internet search engine database regarding a particular WWW resource.” The case was later transferred to the Northern District of California where, following an adverse ruling, Site Update Solutions agreed to dismiss the case and on August 13, the court entered its order of dismissal.

On September 29, 2010, a trustee in bankruptcy filed against us an adversary proceeding in the matter of In re: Petters Company, Inc., a case filed in United States Bankruptcy Court, in the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleges principal causes of action against us under various Bankruptcy Code sections and the Minnesota Fraudulent Transfer Act, to recover damages for alleged transfers of property from the Petters Company occurring prior to the filing of the case initially as a civil receivership in October 2008. The trustee’s complaint alleges such transfers occurred in at least one note transaction whereby we transferred at least $2.3 million and received in return transfers totaling at least $2.5 million. The trustee does not specify a date for the transactions; however we believe that any alleged transaction with the Petters Company would have taken place in excess of seven years from the date of the filing of the adversary proceeding. The case is in its early stages. We filed a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations and other grounds. The court has not ruled upon the motion to dismiss. The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have been asserted against us are

17

Table of Contents