Digital Markets Act Investigations On March 25, 2024, the Commission announced that it had opened a formal noncompliance investigation against the Company under Article 5(4) of the EU DMA (“Article 5(4) Investigation”). The Article 5(4) Investigation relates to how developers may communicate and promote offers to end users for apps distributed through the App Store, as well as how developers may conclude contracts with those end users. On June 24, 2024, the Commission announced that it had opened an additional formal investigation against the Company regarding whether the Company’s new contractual requirements for third-party app developers and app marketplaces may violate the DMA (“Article 6(4) Investigation”). On April 23, 2025, the Commission fined the Company €500 million in the Article 5(4) Investigation and issued a cease and desist order requiring the Company to remove technical and commercial restrictions that prevent developers from steering users to alternative distribution channels outside the App Store. The Company has appealed the Commission’s Article 5(4) decision. Also on April 23, 2025, the Commission issued preliminary findings in the Article 6(4) Investigation. If the Commission makes a final determination in the Article 6(4) Investigation that there has been a violation, it can issue a cease and desist order and may impose fines up to 10% of the Company’s annual worldwide net sales. The Commission may also seek to impose additional fines if it deems that the Company has violated a cease and desist order. The Company believes that it complies with the DMA and has continued to make changes to its compliance plan in response to feedback and engagement with the Commission. Department of Justice Lawsuit On March 21, 2024, the DOJ and a number of state and district attorneys general filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company alleging monopolization or attempted monopolization in the markets for “performance smartphones” and “smartphones” in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The DOJ is seeking equitable relief to redress the alleged anticompetitive behavior. In addition, various civil litigation matters have been filed in state and federal courts in the U.S. alleging similar violations of U.S. antitrust laws and seeking monetary damages and other nonmonetary relief. The Company believes it has substantial defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself. Epic Games Epic Games, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (“California District Court”) against the Company alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and California’s unfair competition law based upon the Company’s operation of its App Store. The California District Court found that certain provisions of the Company’s App Review Guidelines violate California’s unfair competition law and issued an injunction (the “2021 Injunction”) enjoining the Company from prohibiting developers from including in their apps buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than the Company’s in-app purchase system. The 2021 Injunction applies to apps on the U.S. storefronts of the iOS and iPadOS App Stores. On January 16, 2024, the Company implemented a plan to comply with the 2021 Injunction and filed a statement of compliance with the California District Court. On September 30, 2024, the Company filed a motion with the California District Court to narrow or vacate the 2021 Injunction. On April 30, 2025, the California District Court found the Company to be in violation of the 2021 Injunction and enjoined the Company from imposing any commission or any fee on purchases that consumers make outside an app; restricting, conditioning, limiting, or prohibiting how developers guide consumers to purchases outside an app; or otherwise interfering with a consumer’s choice to proceed in or out of an app. The California District Court also denied the Company’s motion to narrow or vacate the 2021 Injunction and referred the Company to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California for a determination whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its actions and employees, and has appealed the California District Court’s most recent decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit Court”). Although the Company’s request to stay the decision pending appeal was denied, the Ninth Circuit Court has agreed to consider the Company’s appeal on an expedited basis, with oral arguments heard in October 2025. Other Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to other legal proceedings and claims that have not been fully resolved and that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. The Company settled certain matters during the fourth quarter of 2025 that did not individually or in the aggregate have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or operating results. The outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. If one or more legal matters were resolved against the Company in a reporting period for amounts above management’s expectations, the Company’s financial condition and operating results for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected.