Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Legal Proceedings The Company is involved in a number of legal proceedings and certain regulatory matters. The Company records a liability for those legal proceedings and regulatory matters when it determines it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company also discloses when it is reasonably possible that a material loss may be incurred. From time to time, the Company may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement agreements, if it believes settlement is in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders. Unless stated otherwise, the matters discussed below, if decided adversely to or settled by the Company, individually or in the aggregate, may result in a liability material to the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of these matters and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss, beyond the amounts accrued, if any, that may arise from these matters. Settlement of Certain Opioid-Related Matters The Company entered into settlement agreements with all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, three U.S. territories, and the vast majority of eligible political subdivisions and federally recognized Native American tribes to resolve opioid-related claims against the Company. In fiscal year 2023, the Company accrued a liability of approximately $3.3 billion for these settlements, which included amounts for remediation of alleged harms, attorneys' fees, and costs. As of January 31, 2025, all of the accrued liability had been paid. Remaining eligible political subdivisions and federally recognized Native American tribes have until July 15, 2025 and February 24, 2026, respectively, to join these settlements. The Company will owe no additional funds for any eligible political subdivision or federally recognized Native American tribe that elects to join the settlement. Ongoing Opioid-Related Litigation The Company will continue to vigorously defend against any opioid-related matters not settled or otherwise resolved, including, but not limited to, each of the matters described below; any other actions filed by healthcare providers, individuals, and third-party payers; and any action filed by a political subdivision or Native American tribe that elects not to join the settlement described above. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued a liability for these opioid-related matters nor can the Company reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from these matters. The Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of any of the opioid-related matters and no assurance that its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected. Opioid Multidistrict Litigation; Other Opioid-Related Matters in the U.S. and Canada. In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous lawsuits filed against a wide array of defendants by various plaintiffs, including counties, cities, healthcare providers, Native American tribes, individuals and third-party payers, asserting claims generally concerning the impacts of widespread opioid abuse. The consolidated multidistrict litigation is entitled In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (the "MDL") and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The Company is named as a defendant in some cases included in the MDL. A trial involving claims brought by two counties against certain defendants, including the Company, in the MDL resulted in a judgment on August 17, 2022 that ordered all three defendants, including the Company, to pay an aggregate amount of approximately $0.7 billion over 15 years, on a joint and several liability basis, and granted the plaintiffs injunctive relief. The monetary aspect of the judgment was stayed pending appeal, and the injunctive aspect of the judgment went into effect on February 20, 2023, which did not materially impact the Company's operations. The Company filed an appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued an order certifying certain questions in the appeal for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio. On December 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued an order certifying the law and holding that the Ohio Product Liability Act bars all common law public nuisance claims arising from the sale of a product. On January 31, 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order vacating the approximately $0.7 billion judgment, dissolving the injunction, and remanding the case back to the MDL for further proceedings where it remains pending. Additional opioid-related cases against the Company remain pending in the MDL and in state and federal courts. The plaintiffs include healthcare providers, third-party payers, individuals and others and seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including abatement. Four cases brought by third-party payers and one case brought by a hospital system have been selected as bellwether cases to proceed through discovery in the MDL, and the MDL Court may designate additional bellwether cases in the future. The Florida Health Sciences Center case pending in state court in Florida asserts claims on behalf of several hospital systems against the Company and other defendants, and this matter is scheduled for jury trial beginning on September 18, 2025. The Company has been responding to subpoenas, information requests, and investigations from governmental entities related to nationwide controlled substance dispensing and distribution practices involving opioids. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. and certain other subsidiaries of the Company have been named as defendants in two putative class action complaints filed in Canada related to distribution practices involving opioids. These matters remain pending. Department of Justice Opioid Civil Litigation. On December 22, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ") filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company unlawfully dispensed controlled substances from its pharmacies and unlawfully distributed controlled substances to those pharmacies. The complaint alleges that this conduct resulted in violations of the Controlled Substances Act. The DOJ is seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief. On March 11, 2024, the Court granted in-part Walmart's motion to dismiss by dismissing the entirety of the DOJ's claims related to distribution and dismissing the DOJ's claims arising under one of the DOJ's two dispensing liability theories. The DOJ's claims arising under its other dispensing liability theory remain pending. Trial is scheduled for November 2027. Opioid-Related Securities Class Actions. The Company is the subject of two securities class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws regarding the Company's disclosures with respect to opioids purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who acquired Walmart stock from March 31, 2017 through December 22, 2020. Those actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in 2021 and later consolidated. On April 8, 2024, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss these actions. On April 29, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, where the matter remains pending. Opioid-Related Shareholder Derivative Litigation. Three shareholders of the Company filed a derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging that certain current and former directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately oversee the Company's distribution and dispensing of prescription opioids. This action was entitled Ontario Provincial Council of Carpenters' Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Walton, et al., Delaware Court of Chancery, Case No. 2021-0827-JTL ("Ontario Action"). Other shareholders of the Company filed two derivative actions alleging that certain current and former directors and officers breached fiduciary duties and violated federal securities laws in connection with the Company's distribution and dispensing of prescription opioids. Those actions were entitled Abt v. Alvarez, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 21-cv-00172-CFC and Nguyen v. McMillon, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 21-cv-00551-CFC (collectively with the Ontario Action, the "Derivative Actions"). On May 5, 2023, the Walmart Board of Directors adopted resolutions creating a special litigation committee ("SLC") to investigate, review, and analyze the facts and circumstances surrounding the claims and allegations in the Derivative Actions and determine whether the prosecution of such claims is in Walmart's best interest. The Delaware Court of Chancery entered a final order and judgment on December 20, 2024, granting approval to a settlement of the Derivative Actions. Pursuant to this order and judgment (i) insurance carriers funded a $123 million settlement, of which $24.6 million was awarded to plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and the balance was awarded to the Company; and (ii) the Company agreed to maintain certain corporate governance practices for a period of at least five years. The settlement does not include any admission of liability, and the defendants expressly deny any wrongdoing. The Company received settlement proceeds of approximately $99 million on December 24, 2024 and recorded it as a reduction to operating, selling, general, and administrative expense. The Abt and Nguyen actions were dismissed on January 16, 2025. On June 5, 2025, the Board of Directors dissolved the SLC. False Claims Act Litigation. On August 23, 2019, a qui tam action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The action was partially unsealed on April 30, 2024 after the federal government declined to intervene. The DOJ informed the Company of its decision not to intervene on June 20, 2024. On July 25, 2024, the Court transferred the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On January 9, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on behalf of two former pharmacists of the Company as relators that alleges the Company violated the Controlled Substances Act and state pharmacy regulations and that such conduct constitutes violations of the federal False Claims Act. The Company has filed a renewed motion to dismiss that is currently pending with the Court. Other Legal Proceedings Asda Equal Value Claims. Asda, formerly a subsidiary of the Company, is a defendant in certain equal value claims that began in 2008 and are proceeding in the United Kingdom before an Employment Tribunal in Manchester and before the High Court. Claims have been brought by approximately 70,000 current and former Asda store employees who allege their work is of equal value to the work done by employees in Asda's distribution centers and that the difference in pay and conditions between the different jobs is not objectively justified. Additional employees may assert claims in the future. The legal proceedings to consider these equal value claims are in three phases, and the first phase is complete. Certain claims remain under consideration in the second phase. On January 31, 2025, the Employment Tribunal issued a ruling that certain of the claims are permitted to advance to the third phase. There are factual and legal defenses to the equal value claims, and the Company intends to vigorously defend them. Subsequent to the divestiture of Asda in February 2021, the Company continues to oversee the conduct of the defense of these claims. While potential liability for these claims remains with Asda, the Company has agreed to provide indemnification with respect to certain of these claims up to a contractually determined amount. The Company cannot predict the number of such claims that may ultimately be filed and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise related to these proceedings. Accordingly, the Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of these matters. Money Transfer Agent Services Matters. The Company has responded to grand jury subpoenas issued by the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of the DOJ seeking documents regarding the Company's consumer fraud prevention program and anti-money laundering compliance related to the Company's money transfer services, where Walmart is an agent. The most recent subpoena was issued in August 2020. Walmart's responses to DOJ's subpoenas have been complete since 2021. The Company continues to cooperate with the DOJ's review. The Company has also responded to civil investigative demands from the United States Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") in connection with the FTC's investigation related to money transfers and the Company's anti-fraud program in its capacity as an agent. On June 28, 2022, the FTC filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Walmart violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule regarding its money transfer agent services and is requesting non-monetary relief and civil penalties. Following rulings on Walmart's motion to dismiss, the FTC filed an amended complaint on June 30, 2023. On July 3, 2024, the Court granted in part Walmart's motion to dismiss the amended complaint by dismissing with prejudice the claims under the Telemarketing Sales Rule but denying the motion to dismiss with respect to claims for injunctive relief under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. On October 18, 2024, the Court certified its rulings on the motions to dismiss for interlocutory appeal and stayed discovery. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the matter for interlocutory appeal, and it remains pending before that court. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters. However, the Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of these matters and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise. Accordingly, the Company can provide no assurance that its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected. Driver Platform Matters. On December 23, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") filed a lawsuit against the Company and Branch Messenger, Inc. in the District of Minnesota alleging the Company violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act by allegedly requiring independent contractor drivers on the Spark platform to receive payments through a financial product offered by Branch. The CFPB sought an injunction and unspecified restitution, damages, and civil penalties. On May 13, 2025, the CFPB dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit against the Company. The Company has been responding to subpoenas, information requests and investigations from other governmental entities regarding the independent contractor classification of drivers and payment and operational practices with respect to the driver platform. The Company is also defending putative class and representative action civil litigation relating to driver classification and defending other civil litigation and arbitration claims in connection with the driver platform. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters. However, the Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of these matters and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise. Accordingly, the Company can provide no assurance that its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected. Mexico Antitrust Matter. On October 6, 2023, the Comisión Federal de Competencia Económica of México ("COFECE") notified the main Mexican operating subsidiary of Wal-Mart de México, S.A.B. de C.V. ("Walmex"), a majority owned subsidiary of the Company, that COFECE's Investigatory Authority ("IA") had recommended the initiation of a quasi-judicial administrative process against Walmex's subsidiary for alleged relative monopolistic practices in connection with the supply and wholesale distribution of certain consumer goods, retail marketing practices of such consumer goods and related services. On December 12, 2024, after Walmex provided defenses, produced expert evidence and participated in a hearing, COFECE issued a split decision that Walmex's subsidiary had engaged in a single relative monopolistic practice in relation to the negotiation of two types of contributions with its suppliers. The resolution imposed a monetary penalty on Walmex's subsidiary in the amount of $93.4 million pesos (approximately $5 million U.S. dollars) and certain non-structural conduct measures relating to the two prohibited types of supplier contributions (while recognizing that other supplier contributions can continue). On January 6, 2025, Walmex's subsidiary challenged COFECE's resolution through an appeal in the specialized federal courts. Until the appeal is resolved, Walmex's subsidiary will operate in compliance with COFECE's ruling. Payment of the monetary penalty is stayed until the lawsuit is resolved. Foreign Direct Investment Matters. In July 2021, the Directorate of Enforcement in India issued a show cause notice to Flipkart Private Limited and one of its subsidiaries ("Flipkart"), and to unrelated companies and individuals, including certain current and former shareholders and directors of Flipkart. The notice requests the recipients to show cause as to why further proceedings under India's Foreign Direct Investment rules and regulations (the "Rules") should not be initiated against them based on alleged violations during the period from 2009 to 2015, prior to the Company's acquisition of a majority stake in Flipkart in 2018 (the "Notice"), in addition to more recent requests for information from the Directorate of Enforcement to Flipkart for periods prior and subsequent to April 2016 regarding the Rules, including the most recent request in April 2025 (the "Requests"). The Notice is an initial stage of proceedings under the Rules which could, depending upon the conclusions at the end of the initial stage, lead to a hearing to consider the merits of the allegations described in the Notice. If a hearing is initiated, whether with respect to the Notice or from further proceedings related to the Requests, and if it is determined that violations of the Rules occurred, then the regulatory authority has the authority to impose monetary and/or non-monetary relief, such as share ownership restrictions. Flipkart has been responding to the Notice and, if the matter progresses to a consideration of the merits of the allegations described in the Notice, Flipkart intends to defend against the allegations vigorously. Due to the fact that the process regarding the Notice is in the early stages, the Company is unable to predict whether the Notice will lead to a hearing on the merits or, if it does, the final outcome of the resulting proceedings, as well as whether any further proceedings will arise with respect to the Requests. The Company cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from these matters and can provide no assurance as to the scope or outcome of any proceeding that might result from the Notice or the Requests, or the amount of the proceeds the Company may receive in indemnification from individuals and entities that sold shares to the Company under the 2018 agreement for the period prior to the date the Company acquired its majority stake in Flipkart, and further can provide no assurance that its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected. India Antitrust Matter. On January 13, 2020, the Competition Commission of India ("CCI") ordered its Director General (the "DG") to investigate certain matters alleging competition law violations by certain subsidiaries of Flipkart in India and other parties. On September 13, 2024, those subsidiaries received a non-confidential version of the DG's Investigation Report (the "Report"), alleging certain competition law violations. CCI is not bound by the Report, and will conduct its independent analysis of the allegations, including hearing objections from the subsidiaries and other parties before issuing its final order in the matter, which could include monetary and non-monetary relief. CCI's final order would also be subject to appropriate appellate proceedings. The Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of this matter, cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise, and can provide no assurance that its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected.

The Company is involved in a number of legal proceedings and certain regulatory matters. The Company records a liability for those legal proceedings and regulatory matters when it determines it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company also discloses when it is reasonably possible that a material loss may be incurred. From time to time, the Company may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement agreements, if it believes settlement is in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders.

The Company entered into settlement agreements with all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, three U.S. territories, and the vast majority of eligible political subdivisions and federally recognized Native American tribes to resolve opioid-related claims against the Company. In fiscal year 2023, the Company accrued a liability of approximately $3.3 billion for these settlements, which included amounts for remediation of alleged harms, attorneys' fees, and costs. As of January 31, 2025, all of the accrued liability had been paid. Remaining eligible political subdivisions and federally recognized Native American tribes have until July 15, 2025 and February 24, 2026, respectively, to join these settlements. The Company will owe no additional funds for any eligible political subdivision or federally recognized Native American tribe that elects to join the settlement.

The Company will continue to vigorously defend against any opioid-related matters not settled or otherwise resolved, including, but not limited to, each of the matters described below; any other actions filed by healthcare providers, individuals, and third-party payers; and any action filed by a political subdivision or Native American tribe that elects not to join the settlement described above. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued a liability for these opioid-related matters nor can the Company reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from these matters. The Company can provide no assurance as to

Opioid Multidistrict Litigation; Other Opioid-Related Matters in the U.S. and Canada. In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous lawsuits filed against a wide array of defendants by various plaintiffs, including counties, cities, healthcare providers, Native American tribes, individuals and third-party payers, asserting claims generally concerning the impacts of widespread opioid abuse. The consolidated multidistrict litigation is entitled In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (the "MDL") and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The Company is named as a defendant in some cases included in the MDL.

A trial involving claims brought by two counties against certain defendants, including the Company, in the MDL resulted in a judgment on August 17, 2022 that ordered all three defendants, including the Company, to pay an aggregate amount of approximately $0.7 billion over 15 years, on a joint and several liability basis, and granted the plaintiffs injunctive relief. The monetary aspect of the judgment was stayed pending appeal, and the injunctive aspect of the judgment went into effect on February 20, 2023, which did not materially impact the Company's operations. The Company filed an appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued an order certifying certain questions in the appeal for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio. On December 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued an order certifying the law and holding that the Ohio Product Liability Act bars all common law public nuisance claims arising from the sale of a product. On January 31, 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order vacating the approximately $0.7 billion judgment, dissolving the injunction, and remanding the case back to the MDL for further proceedings where it remains pending.

Additional opioid-related cases against the Company remain pending in the MDL and in state and federal courts. The plaintiffs include healthcare providers, third-party payers, individuals and others and seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including abatement. Four cases brought by third-party payers and one case brought by a hospital system have been selected as bellwether cases to proceed through discovery in the MDL, and the MDL Court may designate additional bellwether cases in the future. The Florida Health Sciences Center case pending in state court in Florida asserts claims on behalf of several hospital systems against the Company and other defendants, and this matter is scheduled for jury trial beginning on September 18, 2025.

Department of Justice Opioid Civil Litigation. On December 22, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ") filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company unlawfully dispensed controlled substances from its pharmacies and unlawfully distributed controlled substances to those pharmacies. The complaint alleges that this conduct resulted in violations of the Controlled Substances Act. The DOJ is seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief. On March 11, 2024, the Court granted in-part Walmart's motion to dismiss by dismissing the entirety of the DOJ's claims related to distribution and dismissing the DOJ's claims arising under one of the DOJ's two dispensing liability theories. The DOJ's claims arising under its other dispensing liability theory remain pending. Trial is scheduled for November 2027.

Opioid-Related Securities Class Actions. The Company is the subject of two securities class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws regarding the Company's disclosures with respect to opioids purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who acquired Walmart stock from March 31, 2017 through December 22, 2020. Those actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in 2021 and later consolidated. On April 8, 2024, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss these actions. On April 29, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, where the matter remains pending.

Three shareholders of the Company filed a derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging that certain current and former directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately oversee the Company's distribution and dispensing of prescription opioids. This action was entitled Ontario Provincial Council of Carpenters' Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Walton, et al., Delaware Court of Chancery, Case No. 2021-0827-JTL ("Ontario Action"). Other shareholders of the Company filed two derivative actions alleging that certain current and former directors and officers breached fiduciary duties and violated federal securities laws in connection with the Company's distribution and dispensing of prescription opioids. Those actions were entitled Abt v. Alvarez, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 21-cv-00172-CFC and Nguyen v. McMillon, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 21-cv-00551-CFC (collectively with the Ontario Action, the "Derivative Actions"). On May 5, 2023, the Walmart Board of Directors adopted resolutions creating a special litigation committee ("SLC") to investigate, review, and analyze the facts and circumstances surrounding the claims and allegations in the Derivative Actions and determine whether the prosecution of such claims is in Walmart's best interest.

$24.6 million was awarded to plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and the balance was awarded to the Company; and (ii) the Company agreed to maintain certain corporate governance practices for a period of at least five years. The settlement does not include any admission of liability, and the defendants expressly deny any wrongdoing. The Company received settlement proceeds of approximately $99 million on December 24, 2024 and recorded it as a reduction to operating, selling, general, and administrative expense. The Abt and Nguyen actions were dismissed on January 16, 2025. On June 5, 2025, the Board of Directors dissolved the SLC.

False Claims Act Litigation. On August 23, 2019, a qui tam action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The action was partially unsealed on April 30, 2024 after the federal government declined to intervene. The DOJ informed the Company of its decision not to intervene on June 20, 2024. On July 25, 2024, the Court transferred the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On January 9, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on behalf of two former pharmacists of the Company as relators that alleges the Company violated the Controlled Substances Act and state pharmacy regulations and that such conduct constitutes violations of the federal False Claims Act. The Company has filed a renewed motion to dismiss that is currently pending with the Court.

Asda Equal Value Claims. Asda, formerly a subsidiary of the Company, is a defendant in certain equal value claims that began in 2008 and are proceeding in the United Kingdom before an Employment Tribunal in Manchester and before the High Court. Claims have been brought by approximately 70,000 current and former Asda store employees who allege their work is of equal value to the work done by employees in Asda's distribution centers and that the difference in pay and conditions between the different jobs is not objectively justified. Additional employees may assert claims in the future. The legal proceedings to consider these equal value claims are in three phases, and the first phase is complete. Certain claims remain under consideration in the second phase. On January 31, 2025, the Employment Tribunal issued a ruling that certain of the claims are permitted to advance to the third phase. There are factual and legal defenses to the equal value claims, and the Company intends to vigorously defend them. Subsequent to the divestiture of Asda in February 2021, the Company continues to oversee the conduct of the defense of these claims. While potential liability for these claims remains with Asda, the Company has agreed to provide indemnification with respect to certain of these claims up to a contractually determined amount. The Company cannot predict the number of such claims that may ultimately be filed and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise related to these proceedings. Accordingly, the Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of these matters.

Money Transfer Agent Services Matters. The Company has responded to grand jury subpoenas issued by the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of the DOJ seeking documents regarding the Company's consumer fraud prevention program and anti-money laundering compliance related to the Company's money transfer services, where Walmart is an agent. The most recent subpoena was issued in August 2020. Walmart's responses to DOJ's subpoenas have been complete since 2021. The Company continues to cooperate with the DOJ's review.

The Company has also responded to civil investigative demands from the United States Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") in connection with the FTC's investigation related to money transfers and the Company's anti-fraud program in its capacity as an agent. On June 28, 2022, the FTC filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Walmart violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule regarding its money transfer agent services and is requesting non-monetary relief and civil penalties. Following rulings on Walmart's motion to dismiss, the FTC filed an amended complaint on June 30, 2023. On July 3, 2024, the Court granted in part Walmart's motion to dismiss the amended complaint by dismissing with prejudice the claims under the Telemarketing Sales Rule but denying the motion to dismiss with respect to claims for injunctive relief under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. On October 18, 2024, the Court certified its rulings on the motions to dismiss for interlocutory appeal and stayed discovery. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the matter for interlocutory appeal, and it remains pending before that court.

Driver Platform Matters. On December 23, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") filed a lawsuit against the Company and Branch Messenger, Inc. in the District of Minnesota alleging the Company violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act by allegedly requiring independent contractor drivers on the Spark platform to receive payments through a financial product offered by Branch. The CFPB sought an injunction and unspecified restitution, damages, and civil penalties. On May 13, 2025, the CFPB dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit against the Company.

Mexico Antitrust Matter. On October 6, 2023, the Comisión Federal de Competencia Económica of México ("COFECE") notified the main Mexican operating subsidiary of Wal-Mart de México, S.A.B. de C.V. ("Walmex"), a majority owned subsidiary of the Company, that COFECE's Investigatory Authority ("IA") had recommended the initiation of a quasi-judicial administrative process against Walmex's subsidiary for alleged relative monopolistic practices in connection with the supply and wholesale distribution of certain consumer goods, retail marketing practices of such consumer goods and related services. On December 12, 2024, after Walmex provided defenses, produced expert evidence and participated in a hearing, COFECE issued a split decision that Walmex's subsidiary had engaged in a single relative monopolistic practice in relation to the negotiation of two types of contributions with its suppliers. The resolution imposed a monetary penalty on Walmex's subsidiary in the amount of $93.4 million pesos (approximately $5 million U.S. dollars) and certain non-structural conduct measures relating to the two prohibited types of supplier contributions (while recognizing that other supplier contributions can continue). On January 6, 2025, Walmex's subsidiary challenged COFECE's resolution through an appeal in the specialized federal courts. Until the appeal is resolved, Walmex's subsidiary will operate in compliance with COFECE's ruling. Payment of the monetary penalty is stayed until the lawsuit is resolved.

Foreign Direct Investment Matters. In July 2021, the Directorate of Enforcement in India issued a show cause notice to Flipkart Private Limited and one of its subsidiaries ("Flipkart"), and to unrelated companies and individuals, including certain current and former shareholders and directors of Flipkart. The notice requests the recipients to show cause as to why further proceedings under India's Foreign Direct Investment rules and regulations (the "Rules") should not be initiated against them based on alleged violations during the period from 2009 to 2015, prior to the Company's acquisition of a majority stake in Flipkart in 2018 (the "Notice"), in addition to more recent requests for information from the Directorate of Enforcement to Flipkart for periods prior and subsequent to April 2016 regarding the Rules, including the most recent request in April 2025 (the "Requests"). The Notice is an initial stage of proceedings under the Rules which could, depending upon the conclusions at the end of the initial stage, lead to a hearing to consider the merits of the allegations described in the Notice. If a hearing is initiated, whether with respect to the Notice or from further proceedings related to the Requests, and if it is determined that violations of the Rules occurred, then the regulatory authority has the authority to impose monetary and/or non-monetary relief, such as share ownership restrictions. Flipkart has been responding to the Notice and, if the matter progresses to a consideration of the merits of the allegations described in the Notice, Flipkart intends to defend against the allegations vigorously. Due to the fact that the process regarding the Notice is in the early stages, the Company is unable to predict whether the Notice will lead to a hearing on the merits or, if it does, the final outcome of the resulting proceedings, as well as whether any further proceedings will arise with respect to the Requests. The Company cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from these matters and can provide no assurance as to the scope or outcome of any proceeding that might result from the Notice or the Requests, or the amount of the proceeds the Company may receive in indemnification from individuals and entities that sold shares to the Company under the 2018 agreement for the period prior to the date the Company acquired its majority stake in Flipkart, and further can provide no assurance that its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected.

India Antitrust Matter. On January 13, 2020, the Competition Commission of India ("CCI") ordered its Director General (the "DG") to investigate certain matters alleging competition law violations by certain subsidiaries of Flipkart in India and other parties. On September 13, 2024, those subsidiaries received a non-confidential version of the DG's Investigation Report (the "Report"), alleging certain competition law violations. CCI is not bound by the Report, and will conduct its independent analysis of the allegations, including hearing objections from the subsidiaries and other parties before issuing its final order in the matter, which could include monetary and non-monetary relief. CCI's final order would also be subject to appropriate appellate proceedings. The Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of this matter, cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise, and can provide no assurance that its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected.