As of March 31, 2025, the Company had long-term commitments for cost of revenue related agreements (i.e., bandwidth usage, peering and other managed services with various networks, fixed asset vendors, Internet service providers and other third-party vendors). The Company also has non-cost of revenue long-term commitments for various non-cancelable agreements.

The Company conducts its operations in many tax jurisdictions throughout the United States. In some of these jurisdictions the Company is subject to indirect taxes, such as sales and use taxes, and may be subject to certain other taxes. In accordance with GAAP, the Company has recorded a provision for its tax exposure in these jurisdictions when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the exposure can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accrued $4.3 million as of both March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, for sales and use tax. These estimates are based on several key assumptions, including the taxability of the Company’s operations and the jurisdictions in which the Company believes it has nexus. In the event these jurisdictions challenge the Company’s assumptions and analysis, its actual exposure could differ materially from its current estimates.

On May 24, 2024, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Ken Kula v. Fastly, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:24-cv-03170), naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. Motions for lead plaintiff were filed on July 23, 2024. On August 22, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff (“Lead Plaintiff”) and lead counsel. On November 1, 2024, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act purportedly on behalf of all those who purchased or acquired Fastly securities between November 15, 2023 and August 7, 2024. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 15, 2025. Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss on March 17, 2025. Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss on April 30, 2025. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, regarding these same or other matters and also naming as defendants the Company and its officers and directors.

On June 12, 2024, certain of the Company’s officers and directors were named as defendants in a stockholder derivative action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Roy v. Nightingale, et al. (Case No. 3:24-cv-03549-JCS). On July 1, 2024, a stockholder derivative complaint was also filed against certain of the Company's officers and directors in the same court, captioned Steffens v. Nightingale et al. (Case No. 4:24-cv-03984-DMR).

The derivative complaints are based on substantially similar allegations as those in the securities class action. The derivative complaints assert that defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the Company, as well as claims of unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. On September 17, 2024, the court consolidated and stayed the derivative actions until after resolution of the Company’s motion to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action. On August 23, 2024, a substantially similar stockholder derivative complaint was filed against certain of the Company’s officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Mark Sweitzer v. Nightingale, et al. (Case No. 1:24-cv-00969-GBW) (the “Sweitzer Action”). On September 26, 2024, the court stayed the Sweitzer Action until after resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action. On December 20, 2024, a substantially similar stockholder derivative complaint was filed against certain of the Company’s officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Bushansky v. Nightingale, et al. (Case No. 2024-1322) (the “Bushansky Action”). On January 8, 2025, the court stayed the Bushansky Action until after resolution of the Company’s motion to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, regarding these same or other matters and also naming as defendants the Company and its officers and directors.

The pending lawsuits and any other related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual defense and disposition costs will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of the pending lawsuits and any other related lawsuits is necessarily uncertain. The Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of the pending lawsuits and any additional lawsuits, and it may not prevail. In addition, the Company may incur substantial legal fees and costs in connection with such lawsuits. The Company is not currently able to estimate the possible cost to it from these matters, as the pending lawsuits are currently at an early stage, and it cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve the pending lawsuits or the possible amount of any damages that it may be required to pay. Such amounts could be material to the Company's financial statements if the Company does not prevail in the defense against the pending lawsuits and any other related lawsuits, or even if it does prevail.

As of March 31, 2025, the Company has not recorded any significant accruals for loss contingencies associated with the above mentioned lawsuits as it does not believe an outcome resulting in a loss is probable. It will accrue for loss contingencies if it becomes both probable that it will incur a loss and if the Company can reasonably estimate the amount or range of the loss.

The Company enters into standard indemnification agreements in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these agreements, the Company agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party, generally the Company’s business partners or customers, in connection with its provision of its services. Generally, these obligations are limited to claims relating to infringement of a patent, copyright, or other intellectual property right, breach of the Company’s security or data protection obligations, or its negligence, willful misconduct, or violation of law. Subject to applicable statutes of limitation, the term of these indemnification agreements is generally for the duration of the agreement. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, the Company carries insurance that covers certain third-party claims relating to the Company’s services and could limit its exposure in that respect.

The Company has agreed to indemnify each of its officers and directors during his or her lifetime for certain events or occurrences that happen by reason of the fact that the officer or director is, was, or has agreed to serve as an officer or director of the Company. The Company has director and officer insurance policies that may limit its exposure and may enable it to recover a portion of certain future amounts paid.

To date, the Company has not encountered material costs as a result of such indemnification obligations and has not accrued any related liabilities in its financial statements. In assessing whether to establish an accrual, the Company considers such factors as the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome and the ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss.