We maintain a network operations center at our headquarters in Sunnyvale, California and employ a staff of 32 individuals with experience in voice and data operations to provide 24-hour operations support, 7 days per week. We use various tools to monitor and manage all elements of our network and our partners' networks in real-time. We also monitor the network elements of some of our larger business customers. Additionally, our network operations center provides technical support to troubleshoot equipment and network problems. We also rely upon the network operations centers and resources of our telecommunications carrier partners to augment our monitoring and response efforts.

We maintain a call center at our headquarters in Sunnyvale, California and have a staff of 86 employees and contractors that provide customer service and technical support to customers. In addition, we have outsourced some customer support activities to third parties. Customers who access our services directly through our web site receive customer service and

6

technical support through multilingual telephone communication, web-based and "chat" sessions, and e-mail support.

We are a party to telecommunications interconnect and service agreements with VoIP providers and PSTN telecommunications carriers, such as Level(3) Communications and Inteliquent. Pursuant to these agreements, VoIP calls originating on our network can be terminated on other VoIP networks or the PSTN. Correspondingly, calls originating on other VoIP networks and the PSTN can be terminated on our network. While we believe that relations with these providers and carriers are good, we have no assurance that these partners will be able or willing to supply services to us in the future.

The VoIP market is characterized by rapid technological changes and advancements. Accordingly, we make substantial investments in the design and development of new products and services, as well as the development of enhancements and features to our existing 8x8 products and services. Future development also will focus on the use and interoperability of our products and services with emerging audio and video telephony standards and protocols, quality and performance enhancements to multimedia compression algorithms, support of new customer premise equipment, new unified services and the enhancement of existing products and services that are essential to our success.

We currently employ 39 individuals in research, development and engineering activities in our facilities in Sunnyvale, California. Research and development expenses in each of the fiscal years ended March 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 were $6.7 million, $4.8 million and $5.0 million, respectively.

Although several regulatory proceedings are underway or are being contemplated by federal and state authorities, including the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") and state regulatory agencies, VoIP communication services, like ours, have been subject to less regulation at the state and federal levels than traditional telecommunications services. Providers of traditional telecommunications services are subject to the highest degree of regulation, while providers of information services are largely exempt from most federal and state regulations governing traditional common carriers. The FCC has subjected VoIP service providers to a smaller subset of regulations that apply to traditional telecommunications service providers and have not yet classified VoIP services as either telecommunications or information. The FCC is currently examining the status of VoIP service providers and the services they provide in multiple open proceedings.

The effect of any future laws, regulations and orders on our operations, including, but not limited to, the 8x8 service, cannot be determined. But as a general matter, increased regulation and the imposition of additional funding obligations increases service costs that may or may not be recoverable from our customers, which could result in making our services less competitive with traditional telecommunications services if we increase our retail prices or decreasing our profit margins if we attempt to absorb such costs.

In addition to regulations addressing Internet telephony and broadband services, other regulatory issues relating to the Internet, in general, could affect our ability to provide our services. Congress has adopted legislation that regulates certain aspects of the Internet including online content, user privacy, taxation, liability for third-party activities and jurisdiction. In addition, a number of initiatives pending in Congress and state legislatures would prohibit or restrict advertising or sale of certain products and services on the Internet, which may have the effect of raising the cost of doing business on the Internet generally.

Federal, state, local and foreign governmental organizations are considering other legislative and regulatory proposals that would regulate and/or tax applications running over the Internet. We cannot predict whether new taxes will be imposed on our services, and depending on the type of taxes imposed, whether and how our services would be affected thereafter. Increased regulation of the Internet may decrease its growth and hinder technological development, which may negatively impact the cost of doing business via the Internet or otherwise materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

7

Intellectual Property and Proprietary Rights

Our ability to compete depends, in part, on our ability to obtain and enforce intellectual property protection for our technology in the United States and internationally. We currently rely primarily on a combination of trade secrets, patents, copyrights, trademarks and licenses to protect our intellectually property. As of March 31, 2012, we had been issued 79 United States patents and additional United States and foreign patent applications are pending. Our patents expire on dates ranging from 2012 to 2028. We cannot predict whether our pending patent applications will result in issued patents.

To protect our trade secrets and other proprietary information, we require our employees to sign agreements providing for the maintenance of confidentiality and also the assignment of rights to inventions made by them while in our employ. There can be no assurance that our means of protecting our proprietary rights in the United States or abroad will be adequate or that competition will not independently develop technologies that are similar or superior to our technology, duplicate our technology or design around any of our patents. In addition, the laws of foreign countries in which our products are or may be sold do not protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as do the laws of the United States. Our failure to protect our proprietary information could cause our business and operating results to suffer.

We are also subject to the risks of adverse claims and litigation alleging infringement of the intellectual property rights of others. Such claims and litigation could require us to expend substantial resources and distract key employees from their normal duties, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, cash flows and financial condition. The communications and software industries are subject to frequent litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. Moreover, the VoIP service provider community has historically been a target of patent holders. There is a risk that we will be a target of assertions of patent rights and that we may be required to expend significant resources to investigate and defend against such assertions of patent rights. For example:

• On May 2, 2008, we received a letter from AT&T Intellectual Property, L.L.C. ("AT&T IP") expressing the belief that we must license a specified patent for use in our 8x8 broadband telephone service, as well as suggesting that we obtain a license to its portfolio of MPEG-4 patents for use with our video telephone products and services. At the same time, we began an evaluation of whether AT&T IP's affiliated entities may need to license any of our patents or other intellectual property. We have continued to engage in discussions with AT&T IP to explore a mutually agreeable resolution of our respective assertions regarding these intellectual property issues.  We are unable at this time to state whether we will enter into any license or cross-license agreements with AT&T IP or whether we ultimately anticipate any material effects on our operating results or financial condition as a consequence of these matters.
• On March 15, 2011, we were named a defendant in a lawsuit, Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. v. 8x8, Inc. et al., along with more than 20 other defendants. More information regarding this suit is provided below under Part I, Item 3. "LEGAL PROCEEDINGS."
• On October 25, 2011, we were named a defendant in a lawsuit, Klausner Technologies, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation et al., along with 30 other defendants. More information regarding this suit is provided below under Part I, Item 3. "LEGAL PROCEEDINGS."

We rely upon certain technology, including hardware and software, licensed from third parties. There can be no assurance that the technology licensed by us will continue to provide competitive features and functionality or that licenses for technology currently utilized by us or other technology which we may seek to license in the future will be available to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all. The loss of, or inability to maintain, existing licenses could result in shipment delays or reductions until equivalent technology or suitable alternative products could be developed, identified, licensed and integrated, and could harm our business. These licenses are on standard commercial terms made generally available by the companies providing the licenses. To date, the cost and terms of these licenses individually has not been material to our business.

Most of our customers and substantially all of our revenues are in the U.S. Revenue from customers outside the United States was not material for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010.

As of March 31, 2012, our workforce consisted of 301 employees. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or are subject to a collective bargaining arrangement.

8

Executive Officers of the Registrant

Our executive officers as of the date of this report are listed below.

Bryan R. Martin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Bryan R. Martin, age 44, has served as Chairman of the Board of Directors since December 2003 and as Chief Executive Officer and as a director since February 2002. From March 2007 to November 2008, and again from April 2011 to December 2011, he has served as President. From February 2001 to February 2002, he served as our President and Chief Operating Officer. He served as our Senior Vice President, Engineering Operations from July 2000 to February 2001 and as Chief Technical Officer from August 1995 to August 2000. He also served as a director of the Company from January 1998 through July 1999. In addition, Mr. Martin served in various technical roles for the Company from April 1990 to August 1995. He received a B.S. and an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University.

Dan Weirich, Chief Financial Officer. Dan Weirich, age 38, has served as our Chief Financial Officer since July 2006. From November 2008 to March 2011, Mr. Weirich also served as our President. From June 2006 to July 2006, Mr. Weirich served as our Acting Chief Financial Officer. He was our Vice President of Operations from April 2006 to June 2006 and Director of Strategic Sales from March 2004 to April 2006. Prior to joining us, Mr. Weirich served in various roles for iAsiaWorks, Qwest Communications and Phoenix Network. He received a B.S. in International Business from the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Kim Niederman, President. Kim Niederman, age 60, has served as our President since January 2012. From February 2011 to December 2011, Mr. Niederman served as our Senior Vice President of Sales. From February to November 2010, Mr. Niederman was Senior Vice President of NComputing, Inc. and from January 2007 to January 2009, Mr. Niederman was Chief Executive Officer and President of Anagran, Inc. From January 2003 to January 2007, Mr. Niederman was Senior Vice President of Worldwide Sales for Polycom, Inc. He received a B.A. from the University of Denver.

Ramprakash Narayanaswamy, Chief Technology Officer and Vice President of Engineering. Ramprakash Narayanaswamy, age 47, was appointed Chief Technology Officer in April 2010 and is responsible for our research, development and engineering operations. From February 2005 to April 2010, Mr. Narayanaswamy held multiple numerous engineering roles including Vice President, Engineering. Between 1992 and 2005, Mr. Narayanaswamy served in various engineering roles for Nextance Inc., Bluelight.com and Sun Microsystems, Inc. He received his Masters degree in Computer Applications from National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli, India.

Debbie Jo Severin, Chief Marketing Officer and Vice President of Marketing. Debbie Jo Severin, age 52, has served as our Chief Marketing Officer and Vice President of Marketing since March 2009. From 2003 to March 2009, Ms. Severin served as Vice President of Marketing for Covad Communications. Prior to Covad Communications, Ms. Severin worked at PrimeOne Tele-TV, Northpoint Communications, Valiant Networks, BellSouth Telecommunications and Pacific Bell. She received a Masters Degree in Mathematics and a Bachelor of Science from the University of Alabama, Birmingham.

If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, results of operations and financial condition could suffer significantly.

Our future success depends on our ability to significantly increase revenues generated from our services. In turn, the success of our voice and video communications services depends, among other things, upon future demand for VoIP telephony systems and services. Because the use of our service requires that the user be a subscriber of an existing broadband Internet service, usually provided through a cable or digital subscriber line, or DSL, connection, slow or limited adoption of broadband Internet service could adversely affect the growth of our subscriber base and revenues. Although the number of broadband subscribers worldwide has grown significantly over the last five years, VoIP service has not yet been adopted by a majority of prospective business customers. According to a report filed by the FCC in October 2011, approximately 7.5% of access lines to businesses in the United States utilize interconnected VoIP services. To increase the deployment of broadband Internet services from broadband Internet service providers, telephone companies and cable companies must continue to invest in the deployment of high speed broadband networks to residential and business customers, over which we have no control. In addition, VoIP networks must improve quality of service for real-time communications, managing effects such as packet jitter, packet loss,

9

and unreliable bandwidth, so that toll-quality service can be consistently provided. VoIP telephony equipment and services must achieve a similar level of reliability that users of the PSTN have come to expect from their telephone service, and the cost and feature benefits of VoIP must be sufficient to cause customers to switch away from traditional telephony service providers. We must devote substantial resources to educate customers and end users about the benefits of VoIP telephony solutions, in general, and our services in particular. Substantial, ongoing interaction with our customers in order to train and assist them with the deployment and use of our services over these networks is sometimes required. If any or all of these factors fail to occur, our business may be affected adversely.

Many of our existing and target customers are in the small and medium business sector. Although we believe our products and services are less costly than traditional telephone services, these businesses may be more likely to be significantly affected by economic downturns than larger, more established businesses. They also may be more likely to require working capital financing from local and regional banks whose lending activities have been reduced substantially since 2008, as a result of which the existing and target customers may lack the funds necessary to add new equipment and services such as ours. Additionally, these customers often have limited discretionary funds which they may choose to spend on items other than our products and services. If small and medium businesses continue to experience economic hardship, this could negatively affect the overall demand for our products and services, delay and lengthen sales cycles and lead to slower growth or even a decline in our revenue, net income and cash flows.

Although the majority of our billing arrangements with customers are prepaid, we regularly monitor the percentage of customers who cease to pay for our services due to closing or downsizing their business. In general, our customers may terminate their subscriptions for our services on 30 days notice. Even though our customer churn rates improved in fiscal 2012, we believe that more than 50% of our total customer churn is related to customers' financial condition and cannot be certain that we will continue to experience the same improvement in churn rates given current economic conditions. Additionally, the combination of our sales cycle coupled with challenging economic conditions could have a negative impact on the results of our operations.

We recorded operating income of approximately $7.2 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 and ended the period with an accumulated deficit of $123 million. We recorded operating income of approximately $6.2 million and $4.0 million for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Although we have achieved operating income in each of our three most recent fiscal years, we suffered operating losses in each of the three prior fiscal years and may incur operating losses in the foreseeable future, which may be substantial. We will need to increase revenues in order to generate sustainable operating profit. Given our history of fluctuating revenues and operating losses, we cannot be certain that we will be able to maintain operating profitability on an annual basis or on a quarterly basis in the future.

Our products and services depend on the ability of our users to access the Internet, and certain of our products require significant bandwidth to work effectively. Currently, this access is provided by companies that have significant and increasing market power in the broadband and Internet access marketplace, including incumbent telephone companies, cable companies and mobile communications companies. Some of these providers offer products and services that directly compete with our own offerings, which give them a significant competitive advantage. Some of these providers have stated that they may take measures that could degrade, disrupt or increase the cost of user access to certain of our products by restricting or prohibiting the use of their infrastructure to support or facilitate our offerings, or by charging increased fees to us or our users to provide our offerings, while others, including some of the largest providers of broadband Internet access services, have committed to not engaging in such behavior.

On December 23, 2010, the FCC adopted an order that imposes "network neutrality" obligations on providers of fixed and wireless broadband Internet access services, with wireless providers subject to a more limited set of rules. Among other things, the rules: (1) require providers of consumer broadband Internet access to publicly disclose their network management practices and the performance and commercial terms of their broadband Internet access services; (2) prevent broadband Internet access providers from blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network

10

management; and (3) prevent broadband Internet access providers from unreasonably discriminating in the transmission of lawful network traffic over a consumer's broadband Internet access service. The FCC rules became effective on November 20, 2011. Numerous parties have appealed these rules which have been consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. We cannot predict the outcome of these appeals or the impact of these rules on our business at this time. Although we believe interference with access to our products and services is unlikely, broadband Internet access provider interference has occurred, in limited circumstances in the U.S., and could result in a loss of existing users and increased costs, and could impair our ability to attract new users, thereby negatively impacting our revenue and growth.

The telecommunications industry is highly competitive. We face intense competition from traditional telephone companies, wireless companies, cable companies, competitive local exchange carriers, alternative voice communication providers and independent VoIP providers. In addition, our customers are not subject to long-term contractual commitments to purchase our services and can terminate our service and switch to competitors' offerings on short notice.

Most of our current and potential competitors, particularly incumbent telephone and cable companies, have longer operating histories, significantly greater resources and name recognition, and a larger base of customers than we have. As a result, these competitors may have greater credibility with our existing and potential customers. They also may be able to adopt more aggressive pricing policies and devote greater resources to the development, promotion and sale of their products than we can to ours. Our competitors may also offer bundled service arrangements offering a more complete product despite the technical merits or advantages of our products. Competition could decrease our prices, reduce our sales, lower our gross profits or decrease our market share.

We also compete against established alternative voice communication providers and face competition from other large, well- capitalized Internet companies that have recently launched or plan to launch VoIP-enabled services. In addition, we compete with independent VoIP service providers. Some of these service providers may choose to sacrifice revenue in order to gain market share by offering their services at lower prices or for free. In order to compete with such service providers, we may have to significantly reduce our prices, which would affect our profitability.

We also are subject to the risk that new technologies may be developed that are able to deliver competing voice services at lower prices, better or more conveniently. Future competition from new technologies could have a material adverse effect on our growth and operating results.

Given the significant price competition in the markets for our products, we are at a significant disadvantage compared to many of our competitors, especially those with substantially greater resources, and therefore may be better able to withstand an extended period of downward pricing pressure. The adverse impact of a shortfall in our revenues may be magnified by our inability to adjust spending to compensate for such shortfall. Announcements of new products and technologies by our competitors or us could cause customers to defer purchases of our existing products, which also could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

VoIP telephony is an emerging market that is characterized by rapid changes in customer requirements, frequent introductions of new and enhanced products, and continuing and rapid technological advancement. To compete successfully in this emerging market, we must continue to design, develop, manufacture, and sell new and enhanced VoIP telephony software products and services that provide increasingly higher levels of performance and reliability at lower cost.

Decreasing telecommunications rates may diminish or eliminate the competitive pricing advantage of our services, while increased regulation and the imposition of additional regulatory funding obligations at the federal, state and local level could require us to either increase the retail price for our services, thus making us less competitive, or absorb such costs, thus decreasing our profit margins. International and domestic telecommunications rates have decreased significantly over the last few years in most of the markets in which we operate, and we anticipate these rates will continue to decline in all of the markets in which we do business or expect to do business. Users who select our services to take advantage of the current pricing differential between traditional telecommunications rates and our rates may switch to traditional telecommunications

11

carriers if such pricing differentials diminish or disappear, however, and we will be unable to use such pricing differentials to attract new customers in the future. Continued rate decreases would require us to lower our rates to remain competitive and would reduce or possibly eliminate any gross profit from our services. In addition, we may lose subscribers for our services.

The FCC and a number of states are considering reform or other modifications to Universal Service Fund programs. The way we calculate our contribution may change if the FCC or certain states engage in reform or adopt other modifications. In April, 2012, the FCC released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to consider reforms to the manner in which companies, like us, contribute to the federal Universal Service Fund program. In general, the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is considering questions like: what companies should contribute, how contributions should be assessed, and methods to improve the administration of the system. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding nor its impact on our business at this time.

Should the FCC or certain states adopt new contribution mechanisms or otherwise modify contribution obligations that increase our contribution burden, we will either need to raise the amount we currently collect from our customers to cover this obligation or absorb the costs, which would reduce our profit margins. Furthermore, the FCC has ruled that states can require us to contribute to state Universal Service Fund programs. A number of states already require us to contribute, while others are actively considering extending their programs to include the services we provide. We currently pass-through Universal Service Fund contributions to our customers which may result in our services becoming less competitive as compared to those provided by others.

Certain states take the position that offerings by VoIP companies, like us, are intrastate and therefore subject to state regulation. These states argue that if the beginning and end points of communications are known, and if some of these communications occur entirely within the boundaries of a state, the state can regulate that offering. We believe that the FCC has pre-empted states from regulating VoIP offerings like ours in the same manner as providers of traditional telecommunications services. We cannot predict how this issue will be resolved or its impact on our business at this time.

We leverage the infrastructure of third party network service providers to provide telephone numbers, PSTN call termination and origination services, and local number portability for our customers rather than deploying our own network throughout the United States. This decision has resulted in lower capital and operating costs for our business in the short term but has reduced our operating flexibility and ability to make timely service changes. If any of these network service providers cease operations or otherwise terminate the services that we depend on, the delay in switching our technology to another network service provider, if available, and qualifying this new service could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

While we believe that relations with our current service providers are good, and we have contracts in place, there can be no assurance that these service providers will be able or willing to supply cost-effective services to us in the future or that we will be successful in signing up alternative or additional providers. Although we could replace our current providers, if necessary, our ability to provide service to our subscribers could be impacted during this timeframe, and this could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. The loss of access to, or requirement to change, the telephone numbers we provide to our customers also could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

Due to our reliance on these service providers, when problems occur in a network, it may be difficult to identify the source of the problem. The occurrence of hardware and software errors, whether caused by our 8x8 service or another vendor's products, may result in the delay or loss of market acceptance of our products and any necessary revisions may force us to incur significant expenses. The occurrence of some of these types of problems may seriously harm our business, financial condition or operating results.

12

Our physical infrastructure is concentrated in a few facilities and any failure in our physical infrastructure or services could lead to significant costs and disruptions and could reduce our revenue, harm our business reputation and have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

Our leased network and data centers are subject to various points of failure.  Problems with cooling equipment, generators, uninterruptible power supply, routers, switches, or other equipment, whether or not within our control, could result in service interruptions for our customers as well as equipment damage.  Because our services do not require geographic proximity of our data centers to our customers, our infrastructure is consolidated into a few large facilities. Any failure or downtime in one of our data center facilities could affect a significant percentage of our customers. The total destruction or severe impairment of any of our data center facilities could result in significant downtime of our services and the loss of customer data. Because our ability to attract and retain customers depends on our ability to provide customers with highly reliable service, even minor interruptions in our service could harm our reputation. Additionally, in connection with the expansion or consolidation of our existing data center facilities from time to time, there is an increased risk that service interruptions may occur as a result of server relocation or other unforeseen construction-related issues.

We have experienced interruptions in service in the past. While we have not experienced a material increase in customer attrition following these events, the harm to our reputation is difficult to assess. We have taken and continue to take steps to improve our infrastructure to prevent service interruptions, including upgrading our electrical and mechanical infrastructure. However, service interruptions continue to be a significant risk for us and could materially impact our business.

Any future service interruptions could:

• Cause our customers to seek damages for losses incurred;
• Require us to replace existing equipment or add redundant facilities;
• Affect our reputation as a reliable provider of hosting services;
• Cause existing customers to cancel or elect to not renew their contracts; or
• Make it more difficult for us to attract new customers.

Any of these events could materially increase our expenses or reduce our revenue, which would have a material adverse effect on our operating results.

Our data centers are susceptible to increased costs of power and to electrical power outages. Our customer contracts do not contain provisions that would allow us to pass on any increased costs of energy to our customers, which could affect our operating margins. Any increases in the price of our services to recoup these costs could not be implemented until the end of a customer contract term.  Further, power requirements at our data centers are increasing as a result of the increasing power demands of today's servers. Increases in our power costs could impact our operating results and financial condition. Since we rely on third parties to provide our data centers with power sufficient to meet our needs, our data centers could have a limited or inadequate amount of electrical resources necessary to meet our customer requirements. We attempt to limit exposure to system downtime due to power outages by using backup generators and power supplies. However, these protections may not limit our exposure to power shortages or outages entirely. Any system downtime resulting from insufficient power resources or power outages could damage our reputation and lead us to lose current and potential customers, which would harm our operating results and financial condition.

Our success depends in part upon the capacity, reliability, and performance of our network infrastructure, including the capacity leased from our Internet bandwidth suppliers. We depend on these companies to provide uninterrupted and error- free service through their telecommunications networks. Some of these providers are also our competitors. We exercise little control over these providers, which increases our vulnerability to problems with the services they provide. We have experienced and expect to continue to experience interruptions or delays in network service. Any failure on our part or the part of our third-party suppliers to achieve or maintain high data transmission capacity, reliability or performance could significantly reduce customer demand for our services and damage our business.

13

As our customer base grows and their usage of telecommunications capacity increases, we will be required to make additional investments in our capacity to maintain adequate data transmission speeds, the availability of which may be limited or the cost of which may be on terms unacceptable to us. If adequate capacity is not available to us as our customers' usage increases, our network may be unable to achieve or maintain sufficiently high data transmission capacity, reliability or performance. In addition, our business would suffer if our network suppliers increased the prices for their services and we were unable to pass along the increased costs to our customers.

We do not have long-term purchase agreements with our contract manufacturers and we depend on a concentrated group of contract manufacturers for a substantial portion of manufacturing our products. There can be no assurance that our contract manufacturers will be able or willing to reliably manufacture our products, in volumes, on a cost-effective basis or in a timely manner. If we cannot compete effectively for the business of these contract manufacturers, or if any of the contract manufacturers experience financial or other difficulties in their businesses, our revenue and our business could be adversely affected. In particular, if one of our contract manufacturers becomes subject to bankruptcy proceedings, we may not be able to obtain any of our products held by the contract manufacturer.

We also rely on third party vendors for IP phones to utilize our service. We currently do not have long-term supply contracts with any of these vendors. As a result, most of these third party vendors are not obligated to provide products or perform services to us for any specific period, in any specific quantities or at any specific price, except as may be provided in a particular purchase order. The inability of these third party vendors to deliver IP phones of acceptable quality and in a timely manner, particularly the sole source vendors, could adversely affect our operating results or cause them to fluctuate more than anticipated. Additionally, some of our products may require specialized or high-performance component parts that may not be available in quantities or in time frames that meet our requirements.

There has been substantial litigation in the communications, VoIP services, semiconductor, electronics, and related industries regarding intellectual property rights and, from time to time, third parties may claim infringement by us of their intellectual property rights. Our broad range of current and former technology, including IP telephony systems, digital and analog circuits, software, and semiconductors, increases the likelihood that third parties may claim infringement by us of their intellectual property rights. For example, on May 2, 2008, we received a letter from AT&T Intellectual Property, L.L.C. ("AT&T IP") expressing the belief that we must license a specified patent for use in our 8x8 broadband telephone service, as well as suggesting that we obtain a license to its portfolio of MPEG-4 patents for use with our video telephone products and services. At the same time, we began an evaluation of whether AT&T IP's affiliated entities may need to license any of our patents or other intellectual property. We have continued to engage in discussions with AT&T IP to explore a mutually agreeable resolution of the parties' respective assertions regarding these intellectual property issues. We are unable at this time to state whether we will enter into any license or cross-license agreements with AT&T IP or whether we ultimately anticipate any material effects on our operating results or financial condition as a consequence of these matters.

Certain technology necessary for us to provide our services may, in fact, be patented by other parties either now or in the future. If such technology were held under patent by another person, we would have to negotiate a license for the use of that certain technology. We may not be able to negotiate such a license at a price that is acceptable. The existence of such a patent, or our inability to negotiate a license for any such technology on acceptable terms, could force us to cease using such technology and offering products and services incorporating such technology.

• On March 15, 2011, we were named a defendant in a lawsuit, Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. v. 8x8, Inc. et al., along with more than 20 other defendants.
• On October 25, 2011, we were named a defendant in a lawsuit, Klausner Technologies, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation et al., along with 30 other defendants.

14

If we were found to be infringing on the intellectual property rights of any third party in these lawsuits or other claims and proceedings that may be asserted against us in the future, we could be subject to liabilities for such infringement, which could be material. We could also be required to refrain from using, manufacturing or selling certain products or using certain processes, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. From time to time, we have received, and may continue to receive in the future, notices of claims of infringement, misappropriation or misuse of other parties' proprietary rights. There can be no assurance that we will prevail in these discussions and actions or that other actions alleging infringement by us of third party patents will not be asserted or prosecuted against us. Furthermore, lawsuits like these may require significant time and expense to defend, may divert management's attention away from other aspects of our operations and, upon resolution, may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. More information regarding the two pending suits is provided below under Part I. Item 3. "LEGAL PROCEEDINGS."

We rely upon certain technology, including hardware and software, licensed from third parties. There can be no assurance that the technology licensed by us will continue to provide competitive features and functionality or that licenses for technology currently utilized by us or other technology which we may seek to license in the future, will be available to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all. The loss of, or inability to maintain, existing licenses could result in shipment delays or reductions until equivalent technology or suitable alternative products could be developed, identified, licensed and integrated, and could harm our business. These licenses are on standard commercial terms made generally available by the companies providing the licenses. The cost and terms of these licenses individually are not material to our business.

We rely, in part, on trademark, copyright, and trade secret law to protect our intellectual property in the United States and abroad. We seek to protect our software, documentation, and other written materials under trade secret and copyright law, which afford only limited protection. We also rely, in part, on patent law to protect our intellectual property in the United States and internationally. As of March 31, 2012, we had been awarded 79 United States patents and have additional United States and foreign patent applications pending. We cannot predict whether such pending patent applications will result in issued patents that effectively protect our intellectual property. We may not be able to protect our proprietary rights in the United States or internationally (where effective intellectual property protection may be unavailable or limited), and competitors may independently develop technologies that are similar or superior to our technology, duplicate our technology or design around any patent of ours. We have, in the past, licensed and, in the future, expect to continue licensing our technology to others, many of whom are located or may be located abroad. There are no assurances that such licensees will protect our technology from misappropriation. Moreover, litigation may be necessary in the future to enforce our intellectual property rights, to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others, or to defend against claims of infringement or invalidity. Such litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of management time and resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and operating results. Any settlement or adverse determination in such litigation would also subject us to significant liability.

In addition to reliability and quality standards, the market acceptance of telephony over broadband IP networks is dependent upon the adoption of industry standards so that products from multiple manufacturers are able to communicate with each other. Our VoIP telephony products rely heavily on communication standards such as SIP, MGCP and network standards such as TCP/IP and UDP to interoperate with other vendors' equipment. There is currently a lack of agreement among industry leaders about which standard should be used for a particular application, and about the definition of the standards themselves. These standards, as well as audio and video compression standards, continue to evolve. We also must comply with certain rules and regulations of the FCC regarding electromagnetic radiation and safety standards established by Underwriters Laboratories, as well as similar regulations and standards applicable in other countries. Standards are continuously being modified and replaced. As standards evolve, we may be required to modify our existing products or develop and support new versions of our products. We must comply with certain federal, state and local requirements regarding how we interact with our customers, including marketing practices, consumer protection, privacy, and billing issues, the provision of 9-1-1 emergency service and the quality of service we provide to our customers. The failure of our products and services to comply, or delays in compliance, with various existing and evolving standards could delay or interrupt volume production of our VoIP telephony products, subject us

15

to fines or other imposed penalties, or harm the perception and adoption rates of our service, any of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

Regulatory treatment of VoIP telephony outside the United States varies from country to country and often the laws are unclear. We currently distribute our products and services directly to consumers and through resellers that may be subject to telecommunications regulations in their home countries. The failure by us or our customers and resellers to comply with these laws and regulations could reduce our revenue and profitability. Because of our relationship with the resellers, some countries may assert that we are required to register as a telecommunications provider in that country. In such case, our failure to do so could subject us to fines or penalties. In addition, some countries are considering subjecting VoIP services to the regulations applied to traditional telephone companies. Regulatory developments such as these could have a material adverse effect on the use of our services in international locations.

In fiscal 2012, we made two business acquisitions. In fiscal 2011, we made one acquisition and one investment in another company and, if appropriate opportunities present themselves, we may make additional acquisitions or investments or enter into joint ventures or strategic alliances with other companies. Risks commonly encountered in such transactions include:

• The difficulty of assimilating the operations and personnel of the combined companies;
• The risk that we may not be able to integrate the acquired services or technologies with our current services, products, and technologies;
• The potential disruption of our ongoing business;
• The diversion of management attention from our existing business;
• The inability of management to maximize our financial and strategic position through the successful integration of the acquired businesses;
• Difficulty in maintaining controls, procedures, and policies;
• The impairment of relationships with employees, suppliers, and customers as a result of any integration;
• The loss of an acquired base of customers and accompanying revenue;
• The assumption of leased facilities, other long-term commitments or liabilities that could have a material adverse impact on our profitability and cash flow; and
• The dilution to our existing stockholders from the issuance of additional shares of common stock or reduction of earnings per outstanding share in connection with an acquisition that fails to increase the value of our company.

Until 2007, we did not collect or remit state or municipal taxes, such as sales, excise, and ad valorem taxes, fees or surcharges on the charges to our customers for our services, except that we have historically complied with the collection of California sales tax and financial contributions to the 9-1-1 system and the federal Universal Service Fund. We have received inquiries or demands from a number of state and municipal taxing agencies seeking payment of taxes, fees or surcharges that are applied to or collected from customers of providers of traditional public switched telephone network services. Although we have consistently maintained that these taxes, fees or surcharges do not apply to our service for a variety of reasons depending on the statute or rule that establishes such obligations, a number of states have changed their statutes as part of streamlined sales tax initiatives and we are now collecting and remitting sales taxes in those states. The collection of these taxes, fees or surcharges will have the effect of decreasing any price advantage we may have over other providers who have historically paid these taxes and fees. Our compliance with these tax initiatives will also make us less competitive with those competitors who choose not to comply with these tax initiatives. Currently, three jurisdictions are conducting sales tax audits of our records. As of March 31, 2012, there has been no change in the status of the assessment. We collect and have accrued for taxes that we believe are

16

required to be remitted. While historically, the amounts that have been remitted have been within established accruals if our ultimate liability exceeds the accrued amount, it could result in significant charges to our earnings.

Both our emergency calling service and our E-911 calling service are different, in significant respects, from the emergency calling services offered by traditional wireline telephone companies. In each case, the differences may cause significant delays, or even failures, in callers' receipt of the emergency assistance they need.

We are offering E-911 service that is similar to the emergency calling services provided to customers of traditional wireline telephone companies in the same area. For those customers located in an E-911 area, emergency calls are routed directly to an emergency services dispatcher at the PSAP in the area of the customer's registered location. The dispatcher will have automatic access to the customer's telephone number and registered location information. If a customer moves their 8x8 service to a new location, the customer's registered location information must be updated and verified by the customer. Until that takes place, the customer will have to verbally advise the emergency dispatcher of his or her actual location at the time of an emergency 9-1-1 call. This can lead to delays in the delivery of emergency services.

The emergency calls of customers located in areas where we are currently unable to provide E-911 service as described above are supported by a national call center that is run by a third-party provider and operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week. These operators still receive the customer's registered service location and phone number automatically, and coordinate connecting the caller to the appropriate PSAP or emergency services provider and providing the customer's registered service location and phone number to those local authorities, which can also delay the delivery of emergency services. In the event that a customer experiences a broadband or power outage, or if a network failure were to occur, the customer will not be able to reach an emergency services provider using our services.

The FCC may determine that our nomadic emergency calling solution does not satisfy the requirements of its VoIP E-911 order because, in some instances, our nomadic emergency calling solution requires that we route an emergency call to a national emergency call center instead of connecting our customers directly to a local PSAP through a dedicated connection and through the appropriate selective router. The FCC may issue further guidance on compliance requirements in the future that might require us to disconnect those customers not receiving access to emergency services in a manner consistent with the VoIP E-911 order. The effect of such disconnections, monetary penalties, cease and desist orders or other enforcement actions initiated by the FCC or other agency or task force against us could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

Delays our customers may encounter when making emergency services calls and any inability of the answering point to automatically recognize the caller's location or telephone number can result in life threatening consequences. Customers may, in the future, attempt to hold us responsible for any loss, damage, personal injury or death suffered as a result of any failure of our E-911 services. In late July 2008, the President signed into law the "New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008." The law provides public safety, interconnected VoIP providers and others involved in handling 911 calls the same liability protections when handling 911 calls from interconnected VoIP users as from mobile or wired telephone service users. The applicability of the liability protections to our national call center solution is unclear at the present time. Also, we may be exposed to liability for 911 calls made prior to the adoption of this new law although we are unaware of any such liability.

On June 1, 2007, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which it tentatively concluded that all interconnected VoIP service providers that allow customers to use their service in more than one location (nomadic VoIP service providers such as us) must utilize an automatic location technology that meets the same accuracy standards which apply to providers of commercial mobile radio services (mobile phone service providers). In September 2010, the FCC released a Notice of Inquiry again requesting comment on what type of automatic location standards should apply to providers of nomadic VoIP service providers, whether the FCC's rules concerning the delivery of emergency services should be extended beyond providers of interconnected VoIP services, and whether such emergency service obligations should apply to mobile VoIP applications used on smartphones, computers and other devices. In July 2011, the FCC released a Second Further Notice of Proposed

17

Rulemaking, seeking comment on a number of issues including (i) whether to apply the FCC's E-911 rules to "outbound-only" interconnected VoIP services (i.e., services that support placing calls to the PSTN); (ii) whether to adopt rules requiring all interconnected VoIP service to automatically provide location information for emergency calls; and (iii) whether to revise the FCC's definition of interconnected VoIP service to require an "Internet connection" rather than a broadband connection, and to "define connectivity in terms of the ability to connect calls to the United States E.164 telephone numbers rather than the PSTN." Also, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that sought comment on whether any amendment of the definition of interconnected VoIP service should be limited to E-911 requirements, or should apply other regulatory requirements to these additional services. In September 2011, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking soliciting comment on what role the agency could play in the fostering the development and implementation of newer 911 technologies including, but not limited to, prioritization of 911 traffic triggered by an event such as a natural disaster, long-term implementation of IP-based alternatives for delivering different kinds of media to emergency call takers like video, photographs, and other forms of data, and text-to-911 solutions.

The outcome of these proceedings cannot be determined at this time and we may or may not be able to comply with any such obligations that may be adopted. At present, we currently have no means to automatically identify the physical location of one of our customers on the Internet. The FCC's VoIP E-911 order has increased our cost of doing business and may adversely affect our ability to deliver the 8x8 service to new and existing customers in all geographic regions or to nomadic customers who move to a location where emergency calling services compliant with the FCC's mandates are unavailable. Our compliance with and increased costs due to the FCC's VoIP E-911 order put us at a competitive disadvantage to those VoIP service providers who are either not subject to the requirements or have chosen not to comply with the FCC's mandates. We cannot guarantee that emergency calling service consistent with the VoIP E-911 order will be available to all of our customers, especially those accessing our services from outside of the United States. The FCC's current VoIP E-911 order or follow-on orders or clarifications or their impact on our customers due to service price increases or other factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

The FCC reformed the system under which regulated providers of telecommunications services compensate each other for various types of traffic, including VoIP traffic that terminates on the PSTN and applied new call signaling requirements to VoIP and other service providers. The FCC's rules concerning charges for transmission of VoIP traffic could result in an increased cost to terminate the traffic absent specific agreements that provide the appropriate rate to be charged for such traffic when passed between us and other carriers. For VoIP traffic that terminates on the PSTN, the Order establishes a transitional framework that: (1) establishes default intercarrier compensation rates for "toll" VoIP-PSTN traffic that are equal to interstate access rates applicable to non-VoIP traffic; (2) establishes default intercarrier compensation rates for other VoIP-PSTN traffic that will be the applicable reciprocal compensation rates; and (3) allows regulated providers of telecommunications services to tariff these default charges in the relevant federal and state tariffs that apply in the absence of an agreement. The rules then provide for a multiyear transition to a national "bill- and-keep" framework as the ultimate end state for all telecommunications traffic exchanged with a local exchange carrier. Under bill- and-keep, providers do not charge an originating carrier for terminating traffic and instead recover the costs of termination from their own customers. To the extent that the company transmits traffic not subject to a specific intercarrier compensation arrangement and another provider were to assert that the traffic we exchange with them is subject to higher levels of compensation than we, or the third parties terminating our traffic to the PSTN, pay today (if any), our termination costs could initially increase, but ultimately will be reduced as the intercarrier compensation system transitions to a bill-and-keep framework. Accordingly, in the near term, our costs to terminate traffic to the PSTN may increase which could result in either us increasing the retail charges for our service offerings or reducing our profitability. But, over the longer term, we expect our costs to terminate traffic to the PSTN to decline.

Recently, the FCC clarified its intercarrier compensation order with respect to the compensation arrangements for the origination of VoIP traffic. Pursuant to the clarification order, local exchange carriers will be able to tariff default charges, i.e., charges imposed in the absence of commercial agreements between parties exchanging traffic bound for the PSTN, equal to intrastate originating access for originating intrastate toll VoIP traffic. The order makes clear that VoIP traffic includes traffic that originates or terminates in IP, or both, and also without regard to whether the traffic originates in time-division multiplexing or Internet protocol format. Local exchange carriers will have the ability to tariff default charges for the origination of intrastate toll VoIP traffic at intrastate rates until June 30, 2014. Starting July 1, 2014, LECs will be permitted to tariff default rates equal to interstate originating access. For all interstate VoIP traffic, interstate access rates continue to apply,

18

consistent with the original order. At this time, we cannot predict what, if any, impact the FCC's clarification order will have on our business.

The FCC Order reforming the system of compensation for various types of traffic also included rules to address calls for which identifying information is missing or masked in ways that impede billing for such traffic. The FCC's new rules require, among other things, interconnected VoIP providers, like us, that originate interstate or intrastate traffic destined for the PSTN, to transmit the telephone number associated with the calling party to the next provider in the call path. Intermediate providers must pass calling party number or charge number signaling information they receive from other providers unaltered, to subsequent providers in the call path. While we believe we are in compliance with this rule, to the extent that we pass traffic that does not have appropriate calling party number or charge number information, we could be subject to fines, cease and desist orders, or other penalties.

The FCC's Order reforming payments between carriers for various types of traffic includes a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which may result in the FCC adopting additional rules applicable to the exchange of traffic between regulated providers of telecommunications services. While it is uncertain what rules, if any, the FCC will adopt and when the FCC may do so, it is possible that as a result of this proceeding the charges our underlying service providers assess us will increase when we send traffic to the Public Switched Telephone Network. Should this occur, we may have to raise the retail rate of our offering, potentially making our services less competitive with traditional providers of telecommunications services, or our profit margins may decrease. The FCC proceeding is ongoing and we cannot predict whether the FCC will act or what rules it may adopt nor can we predict what impact it may have on our business at this time.

In July 2011, the FCC released a Public Notice concerning a Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by tw telecom inc. The Petitioner requests the FCC to clarify that incumbent providers of local telephone service, like AT&T and Verizon, allow for direct IP-to-IP interconnection with incumbent local exchange carriers for certain IP-based services. Specifically, tw telecom seeks direct IP-to-IP interconnection from incumbent local telephone companies for the transmission and routing of tw telecom's facilities-based VoIP services and for voice services that originate and terminate in Time Division Multiplexing format but are converted to IP format for transport (referred to by the industry as "IP-in-the-middle" voice services). Additionally, tw telecom is asking for the FCC to clarify that its facilities-based VoIP services are "telecommunications services" as well as "telephone exchange services" and/or "exchange access," as those terms are defined under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding nor its potential impact on our business at this time. Depending on how the FCC rules on the tw telecom petition, we could be subject to greater regulation at the state level which would increase our costs of doing business. It is also possible that an adverse ruling by the FCC in this proceeding could change the intercarrier compensation rate that our carriers pay to handle our traffic which could also increase our costs. Increased costs to us may require us to raise our prices, making our services less competitive, reduce our profit margins, or both.

19

The FCC may require providers like us to comply with regulations related to how we present bills to customers. The adoption of such obligations may require us to revise our bills and may increase our costs of providing service which could either result in price increases or reduce our profitability.

The FCC released an order with respect to preventing the placement of unauthorized charges on consumers' telephone bills, a practice referred to in the industry as "cramming." While the FCC did not extend regulations applicable to providers of traditional telephone services to interconnected VoIP providers to prevent "cramming" and other "Truth-in-Billing" requirements, the FCC indicated that it would continue to monitor the marketplace and may extend such obligation in the future. The proceeding remains open. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding, nor can we predict its potential impact on our business at this time. These events could increase our expenses, which would have an adverse effect on our operating results.

In October, 2010, the "Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act" was signed into law. In October, 2011, the FCC adopted an order implementing the new accessibility requirements as well as released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning certain, additional, discrete issues. We cannot predict whether we will be subject to additional accessibility requirements or whether any of our service offerings that are not currently subject to disabilities access requirements will be subject to such obligations. These events could increase our expenses, which would have an adverse effect on our operating results.

The FCC requires all interconnected VoIP providers to comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). The FCC allows VoIP providers to comply with CALEA through the use of a solution provided by a trusted third party with the ability to extract call content and call-identifying information from a VoIP provider's network. While the FCC permits companies like us to use the services provided by these third parties to comply with CALEA, we are ultimately responsible for ensuring the timely delivery of call content and call-identifying information to law enforcement, and for protecting subscriber privacy.

We selected a partner to work with us to develop a solution for CALEA compliant lawful interception of communications and, as of May 14, 2007, we had installed this solution in our network operations and data centers, but had not yet completed certification testing of all required intercept capabilities of this equipment. We completed formal CALEA compliance testing with this partner in March 2009 and currently, our tested CALEA solution is fully deployed in our network. However, we could be subject to an enforcement action by the FCC or law enforcement agencies for any delays related to meeting, or if we fail to comply with, any current or future CALEA obligations.

The FCC requires providers of interconnected VoIP services to comply with certain regulations pertaining to people with disabilities and to contribute to the Telecommunications Relay Services, or TRS, fund. We are also required to offer 7-1-1 abbreviated dialing for access to relay services.  As of April 5, 2008, we have implemented a 7-1-1 system which routes such calls to the appropriate relay center based upon the customer's assigned telephone number. We may be subject to enforcement actions including, but not limited to, fines, cease and desist orders, or other penalties if the FCC believes we are not compliant with these new disability requirements.

The FCC requires providers of interconnected VoIP services to comply with its customer proprietary network information, or CPNI, rules. CPNI includes information such as the phone numbers called by a consumer, the frequency, duration, and timing of such calls, and any services/features purchased by the consumer, such as call waiting, call forwarding, and caller ID, in addition to other information that may appear on a consumer's bill.

20

Under the FCC's rules, companies like us may not use CPNI without customer approval except in narrow circumstances related to the provision of existing services, and must comply with detailed customer approval processes when using CPNI outside of these narrow circumstances. The rules also require more stringent security measures for access to a customer's CPNI data in the form of required passwords for on-line access and call-in access to account information as well as customer notification of account or password changes.

We support local number portability, or LNP, which allows our customers to retain their existing telephone numbers when subscribing to our services. Transferring numbers is a manual process that, in the past, has taken us 20 business days or longer, although we have taken steps to automate this process to reduce the delay. A new customer of our services must maintain both the new 8x8 service and the customer's existing telephone service during the number transfer process. By comparison, transferring wireless telephone numbers among wireless service providers generally takes several hours, and transferring wireline telephone numbers among traditional wireline service providers generally takes a few days. The additional delay that we experience is due to our reliance on third party carriers to transfer the numbers, as well as the delay the existing telephone service provider may contribute to the process. Local number portability is considered an important feature by many potential customers, especially our business customers, and if we fail to reduce related delays, we may experience increased difficulty in acquiring new customers or retaining existing customers. Moreover, the FCC requires interconnected VoIP providers, like us, to comply with industry standard timeframes and a shorter timeframe for certain types of ports. If we are unable to process ports within the requisite timeframes, we could be subject to fines and/or penalties. Additionally, both customers and carriers may seek relief from the relevant state public utility commission, the FCC, and/or in state or federal court.

The FCC has several open proceedings considering new rules that may impact charges that regulated telecommunications carriers assess each other for originating and terminating traffic. It is possible that the FCC will adopt new rules that subjects interconnected VoIP traffic to increased charges. Should this occur, the rates that we pay to our underlying carriers may increase which may reduce our profitability and may also increase the retail price of our service making our service less competitive with other providers of similar calling services. We cannot predict either the timing or the outcome of these proceedings.

We expect the volume of simultaneous calls to increase significantly as the 8x8 subscriber base grows. Our network hardware and software may not be able to accommodate this additional volume. If we fail to maintain an appropriate level of operating performance, or if our service is disrupted, our reputation could be hurt and we could lose customers, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

A fundamental requirement for operating an Internet-based, worldwide voice and video communications service and electronically billing our 8x8 customers is the secure transmission of confidential information and media over public networks. Although we have developed systems and processes that are designed to protect consumer information and prevent fraudulent credit card transactions and other security breaches, failure to mitigate such fraud or breaches may adversely affect our operating results. The law relating to the liability of providers of online payment services is currently unsettled and states may enact their own rules with which we may not comply. We rely on third party providers to process and guarantee payments made by 8x8 subscribers up to certain limits, and we may be unable to prevent our customers from fraudulently receiving

21

goods and services. Our liability risk will increase if a larger fraction of our 8x8 transactions involve fraudulent or disputed credit card transactions. Any costs we incur as a result of fraudulent or disputed transactions could harm our business. In addition, the functionality of our current billing system relies on certain third-party vendors delivering services. If these vendors are unable or unwilling to provide services, we will not be able to charge for our 8x8 services in a timely or scalable fashion, which could significantly decrease our revenue and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Subscribers have, in the past, obtained access to the 8x8 service without paying for monthly service and international toll calls by unlawfully using our authorization codes or by submitting fraudulent credit card information. To date, such losses from unauthorized credit card transactions and theft of service have not been significant. We have implemented anti-fraud procedures in order to control losses relating to these practices, but these procedures may not be adequate to effectively limit all of our exposure in the future from fraud. If our procedures are not effective, consumer fraud and theft of service could significantly decrease our revenue and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our rate of customer terminations, or average monthly customer churn (excluding cancellations within 30 days of sign-up), was 2.0% for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 compared with 2.3% for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011. Our churn rate could increase in the future if customers are not satisfied with our service. Other factors, including increased competition from other VoIP providers, alternative technologies, and adverse business conditions also influence our churn rate.

Because of churn, we have to acquire new customers on an ongoing basis just to maintain our existing level of customers and revenues. As a result, marketing expenditures are an ongoing requirement of our business. If our churn rate increases, we will have to acquire even more new customers in order to maintain our existing revenues. We incur significant costs to acquire new customers, and those costs are an important factor in determining our net profitability. Therefore, if we are unsuccessful in retaining customers or are required to spend significant amounts to acquire new customers beyond those budgeted, our revenue could decrease and our net income could decrease.

Our historical operating results have fluctuated significantly and will likely continue to fluctuate in the future, and a decline in our operating results could cause our stock price to fall. On an annual and a quarterly basis, there are a number of factors that may affect our operating results, many of which are outside our control. These include, but are not limited to:

• changes in market demand;
• the timing of customer orders;
• customer cancellations;
• competitive market conditions;
• lengthy sales cycles and/or regulatory approval cycles;
• new product introductions by us or our competitors;
• market acceptance of new or existing products;
• the cost and availability of components;
• the mix of our customer base and sales channels;
• the mix of products sold;
• the management of inventory;
• continued compliance with industry standards and regulatory requirements; and
• general economic conditions.

Due to these and other factors, we believe that period-to-period comparisons of our results of operations are not meaningful and should not be relied upon as indicators of our future performance. It is possible that in some future periods our results of operations may be below the expectations of public market analysts and investors. If this were to occur, the price of our common stock would likely decline significantly.

22

We need to retain key personnel to support our products and ongoing operations.

The development and marketing of our VoIP services will continue to place a significant strain on our limited personnel, management, and other resources. Our future success depends upon the continued services of our executive officers and other key employees who have critical industry experience and relationships that we rely on to implement our business plan. None of our officers or key employees are bound by employment agreements for any specific term. The loss of the services of any of our officers or key employees could delay the development and introduction of, and negatively impact our ability to sell our services which could adversely affect our financial results and impair our growth. We currently do not maintain key person life insurance policies on any of our employees.

As of March 31, 2012, we had cash and cash equivalents and investments of approximately $24.4 million. While we believe these funds are sufficient to meet our current and anticipated liquidity requirements, we may need to raise additional capital to pursue our strategic objectives. We may not be able to obtain such additional financing as needed on acceptable terms, or at all, which may require us to reduce our operating costs and other expenditures, including reductions of personnel and capital expenditures. If we issue additional equity or convertible debt securities to raise funds, the ownership percentage of our existing stockholders would be reduced and they may experience significant dilution. New investors may demand rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of existing holders of our common stock. If we are not successful in these actions, we may be forced to cease operations.

The market price of the shares of our common stock has been and is likely to continue to be highly volatile. It may be significantly affected by factors such as:

• actual or anticipated fluctuations in our operating results;
• announcements of technical innovations;
• future legislation or regulation of the Internet and/or VoIP;
• loss of key personnel;
• new entrants into the VOIP service marketplace, including cable and incumbent telephone companies and other well-capitalized competitors;
• new products or new contracts by us, our competitors or their customers;
• the perceived or real impact of events that negatively affect our direct competitors; and
• developments with respect to patents or proprietary rights, general market conditions, changes in financial estimates by securities analysts, and other factors which could be unrelated to, or outside of, our control.

The stock market has from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that have particularly affected the market prices for the common stocks of technology companies and that have often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company's securities, securities class action litigation has often been initiated against the issuing company. If our stock price is volatile, we may also be subject to such litigation. Such litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management's attention and resources, which would disrupt business and could cause a decline in our operating results. Any settlement or adverse determination in such litigation would also subject us to significant liability.

Our common stock trades on the NASDAQ Capital Market, which has certain compliance requirements for continued listing of common stock. We have, in the past, been subject to delisting procedures due to a drop in the price of our common stock. If our minimum closing bid price per share falls below $1.00 for a period of 30 consecutive trading days in the future, we may again be subject to delisting procedures. As of the close of business on May 16, 2012, our common stock had a closing bid price of approximately $3.86 per share. We must also meet additional continued listing requirements contained in NASDAQ Listing Rule 5550(b), which requires that we have either (1) a minimum of $2,500,000 in stockholders' equity, (2) $35,000,000 market value of listed securities held by non-affiliates or (3) $500,000 of net income from continuing operations for the most recently completed fiscal year (or two of the three most recently completed fiscal years). As of May 16, 2012, based on our closing price as of that day, the market value of our securities held by non-affiliates approximated $245,595,000 and we were in compliance with NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 5550(b). There can be no assurance that we will continue to meet the continued listing requirements.

23

Delisting could reduce the ability of our shareholders to purchase or sell shares as quickly and as inexpensively as they have done historically. For instance, failure to obtain listing on another market or exchange may make it more difficult for traders to sell our securities. Broker-dealers may be less willing or able to sell or make a market in our common stock. Not maintaining our NASDAQ Capital Market listing may (among other effects):

• result in a decrease in the trading price of our common stock;
• lessen interest by institutions and individuals in investing in our common stock;
• make it more difficult to obtain analyst coverage; and
• make it more difficult for us to raise capital in the future.

None.

Our principal operations are located in Sunnyvale, CA in a facility that is approximately 52,000 square feet and is leased through August 2012. On April 27, 2012, we entered into a lease pursuant to which we will lease approximately 104,657 square feet of office space in San Jose, California for our principal headquarters. The scheduled commencement date for the San Jose, California facility is August 1, 2012, and the term of the lease is seven years. We believe our new facilities will adequately meet our current and foreseeable future needs. For additional information regarding our obligations under leases see Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements contained in Part II, Item 8 of this Report.

From time to time, we become involved in various legal claims and litigation that arise in the normal course of our operations. While the results of such claims and litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, we are not currently aware of any such matters that we believe would have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On October 6, 2010, we were named a defendant in a lawsuit, Ceres Communications Technologies, LLC ("Ceres") v. 8x8, Inc. et al. , along with over a dozen other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.  On November 16, 2010, we agreed to represent and indemnify OfficeMax in this lawsuit for the period in which our prior retail agreement with them was in effect, in accordance with the terms of that agreement.  On June 8, 2011, the Ceres suit against 8x8 and OfficeMax was settled after we acquired license rights for the subject patent from a licensor of third party intellectual property.

On March 15, 2011, we were named a defendant in a lawsuit, Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. v. 8x8, Inc. et al. , along with 20 other defendants. On August 17, 2011, we were dismissed without prejudice from this lawsuit under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On August 17, 2011, we were sued again by Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 11, 2011, which motion is still pending. We have not answered the complaint. We believe we have factual and legal defenses to these claims and are presenting a vigorous defense. We cannot estimate potential liability in this case at this early stage of litigation. Further, on April 26, 2012, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office initiated a Reexamination proceeding with a Reexamination Declaration explaining that there is a substantial new question of patentability affecting each claim of the patent that is the basis for the complaint against us.

On October 25, 2011, we were named a defendant in a lawsuit, Klausner Technologies, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation et al. , along with 30 other defendants. On November 1, 2011, Klausner dismissed the complaint voluntarily and filed new complaints separating the defendants, including a new complaint against us. We believe we have factual and legal defenses to these claims and are presenting a vigorous defense. The plaintiff has not made a specific monetary demand and we cannot estimate potential liability in this case at this early stage of litigation. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 23, 2012, and the motion is still pending. We have not answered the complaint.

24

Not applicable.

We completed our initial public offering on July 2, 1997 under the name 8x8, Inc. From that date through April 3, 2000, our common stock was traded on the NASDAQ National Market, or the NASDAQ, under the symbol "EGHT." From April 4, 2000 through July 18, 2001, our common stock was traded on the NASDAQ under the symbol "NTRG." Since July 19, 2001 our common stock has traded under the symbol "EGHT." In July 2002, in connection with the transformation of the NASDAQ to a national securities exchange our listing was transferred to the NASDAQ Capital Market of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC.

We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock and have no plans to do so in the foreseeable future. As of May 16, 2012, there were 314 holders of record of our common stock.

The following table sets forth the range of high and low close prices for each period indicated: