COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
May 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, we provide indemnifications of varying scope to our customers and channel partners against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of our products and from time to time, we are subject to claims by our customers under these indemnification provisions. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been significant and we are unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification provisions on our future results of operations. To the extent permitted under Delaware law, we have agreements whereby we indemnify our officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is or was serving at our request in such capacity. The indemnification period covers all pertinent events and occurrences during the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, we have director and officer insurance coverage that reduces our exposure and enables us to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. We believe the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements in excess of applicable insurance coverage is minimal. Legal Proceedings We are subject to legal proceedings, claims, including claims relating to intellectual property, commercial, employment and other matters, and investigations, including government investigations, that arise in the ordinary course of our business. Some of these disputes, legal proceedings and investigations may include speculative claims for substantial or indeterminate amounts of damages. We consider all claims on a quarterly basis in accordance with GAAP and based on known facts assess whether potential losses are considered reasonably possible or probable and estimable. Based upon this assessment, we then evaluate disclosure requirements and whether to accrue for such claims in our financial statements. This determination is then reviewed and discussed with the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. We make a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. As of May 30, 2025, accrued provisions for legal proceedings were immaterial. Unless otherwise specifically disclosed in this note, we have determined that no disclosure is required related to any claim against us because: (a) there is not a reasonable possibility that a loss exceeding amounts already recognized (if any) may be incurred with respect to such claim; (b) a reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated; or (c) such estimate is immaterial. All legal costs associated with litigation are expensed as incurred. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, we believe that we have valid defenses with respect to the legal matters pending against us. It is possible, nevertheless, that our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of one or more of such proceedings, claims or investigations. Since June 2022, we have been cooperating with the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) staff in response to a Civil Investigative Demand seeking information regarding our disclosure and subscription cancellation practices relative to the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”). In November 2023, the FTC staff asserted that they had the authority to enter into consent negotiations to determine if a settlement regarding their investigation of these issues could be reached. On March 20, 2024, we were informed that the FTC had voted to authorize a filing of the case. The FTC then referred the case to the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), and on June 17, 2024, the DOJ filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming Adobe and certain of our employees as defendants. The complaint alleges that Adobe failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms, failed to obtain express informed consent and failed to provide a simple cancellation mechanism regarding our disclosure and subscription cancellation practices in violation of ROSCA and the FTC Act. The DOJ is seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, equitable monetary relief and other relief. On October 7, 2024, we filed a motion to dismiss the DOJ’s civil complaint, and that motion was fully briefed as of December 23, 2024. On May 2, 2025, the Court denied our motion to dismiss the complaint. The discovery phase is ongoing. The defense or resolution of this matter could involve significant monetary costs or penalties and have a significant impact on our financial results and operations. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in negotiating a favorable settlement or in litigation. Any remedies or compliance requirements could adversely affect our ability to operate our business or have a materially adverse impact on our financial results. At this stage, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible financial loss or range of any potential financial loss, if any, as a result of this litigation. On October 20, 2023, a securities class action captioned Pembroke Pines Firefighters & Police Officers Pension Fund et al v. Adobe, Inc. et al, renamed as In Re Adobe Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-09260, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Securities Action”) naming Adobe and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. The Securities Action purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s stock between July 23, 2021 and September 22, 2022 (the “Class Period”). The complaint, which was amended on February 23, 2024, alleges that certain public statements made by Adobe during the Class Period related to competition from Figma and the adequacy of Adobe’s existing offerings to counter harms Adobe may have faced due to Figma’s growing market position were materially false and misleading. The Securities Action seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief. We filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Action, which was granted in full on March 27, 2025. Plaintiff has sought leave to amend the complaint in response to the court’s order. On November 16, 2023, a shareholder derivative action captioned Shah v. Narayen et al, Case No. 1:23-cv-01315, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Shah Action”), purportedly on behalf of Adobe. On January 3, 2024, a second shareholder derivative action captioned Gervat v. Narayen et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-00006, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Gervat Action”), purportedly on behalf of Adobe. On January 24, 2024, the Court consolidated the Shah and Gervat Actions (together, the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). On January 18, 2024, a shareholder derivative action captioned Sbriglio v. Narayen et al., Case No. 24-cv-429458, was filed in California Superior Court (the “Sbriglio Action”), purportedly on behalf of Adobe. On January 29, 2024, a shareholder derivative action captioned Roy v. Narayen et al., No. 1:24-cv-00633, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, (the “Roy Action”), purportedly on behalf of Adobe. On May 28, 2025, a shareholder derivative action captioned Daniel v. Narayen et al., Case No. 25-cv-46762 was filed in California Superior Court (the “Daniel Action,” and together with the Consolidated Derivative Action, the Roy Action, and the Sbriglio Action, the “Derivative Actions”), purportedly on behalf of Adobe. The Derivative Actions are based largely on the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Securities Action, and name certain of our current and former officers and members of our Board of Directors as defendants and Adobe as a nominal defendant. The Derivative Actions together allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder), Section 20(a), and/or Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and seek recovery of unspecified damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs, as well as disgorgement of profits and certain payments and benefits, in the case of the Gervat and Daniel Actions, and improvements to Adobe’s corporate governance and internal procedures, in the case of the Shah and Daniel Actions, on behalf of Adobe. The Consolidated Derivative Action, the Roy Action, and the Sbriglio Action are presently stayed pending the final resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing in the Securities Action and the Derivative Actions and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters. In view of the complexity and ongoing and uncertain nature of the outstanding proceedings and inquiries, at this time we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible financial loss or range of financial loss, if any, that we may incur to resolve or settle the Securities Action and the Derivative Actions. In connection with disputes relating to the validity or alleged infringement of third-party intellectual property rights, including patent rights, we have been, are currently and may in the future be subject to claims, negotiations or complex, protracted litigation. Intellectual property disputes and litigation may be very costly and can be disruptive to our business operations by diverting the attention and energies of management and key technical personnel. Although we have successfully defended or resolved past litigation and disputes, we may not prevail in any ongoing or future litigation and disputes. Third-party intellectual property disputes could subject us to significant liabilities, require us to enter into royalty and licensing arrangements on unfavorable terms, prevent us from licensing certain of our products or offering certain of our services, subject us to injunctions restricting our sale of products or services, cause severe disruptions to our operations or the markets in which we compete, or require us to satisfy indemnification commitments with our customers including contractual provisions under various license arrangements and service agreements.

In the ordinary course of business, we provide indemnifications of varying scope to our customers and channel partners against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of our products and from time to time, we are subject to claims by our customers under these indemnification provisions. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been significant and we are unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification provisions on our future results of operations.

To the extent permitted under Delaware law, we have agreements whereby we indemnify our officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is or was serving at our request in such capacity. The indemnification period covers all pertinent events and occurrences during the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, we have director and officer insurance coverage that reduces our exposure and enables us to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. We believe the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements in excess of applicable insurance coverage is minimal.

We are subject to legal proceedings, claims, including claims relating to intellectual property, commercial, employment and other matters, and investigations, including government investigations, that arise in the ordinary course of our business. Some of these disputes, legal proceedings and investigations may include speculative claims for substantial or indeterminate amounts of damages. We consider all claims on a quarterly basis in accordance with GAAP and based on known facts assess whether potential losses are considered reasonably possible or probable and estimable. Based upon this assessment, we then evaluate disclosure requirements and whether to accrue for such claims in our financial statements. This determination is then reviewed and discussed with the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors.

We make a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. As of May 30, 2025, accrued provisions for legal proceedings were immaterial. Unless otherwise specifically disclosed in this note, we have determined that no disclosure is required related to any claim against us because: (a) there is not a reasonable possibility that a loss exceeding amounts already recognized (if any) may be incurred with respect to such claim; (b) a reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated; or (c) such estimate is immaterial.

All legal costs associated with litigation are expensed as incurred. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, we believe that we have valid defenses with respect to the legal matters pending against us. It is possible, nevertheless, that our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of one or more of such proceedings, claims or investigations.

Since June 2022, we have been cooperating with the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) staff in response to a Civil Investigative Demand seeking information regarding our disclosure and subscription cancellation practices relative to the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”). In November 2023, the FTC staff asserted that they had the authority to enter into consent negotiations to determine if a settlement regarding their investigation of these issues could be reached. On March 20, 2024, we were informed that the FTC had voted to authorize a filing of the case. The FTC then referred the case to the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), and on June 17, 2024, the DOJ filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming Adobe and certain of our employees as defendants. The complaint alleges that Adobe failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms, failed to obtain express informed consent and failed to provide a simple cancellation mechanism regarding our disclosure and subscription cancellation practices in violation of ROSCA and the FTC Act. The DOJ is seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, equitable monetary relief and other relief. On October 7, 2024, we filed a motion to dismiss the DOJ’s civil complaint, and that motion was fully briefed as of December 23, 2024. On May 2, 2025, the Court denied our motion to dismiss the complaint. The discovery phase is ongoing. The defense or resolution of this matter could involve significant monetary costs or penalties and have a significant impact on our financial results and operations. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in negotiating a favorable settlement or in litigation. Any remedies or compliance requirements could adversely affect our ability to operate our business or have a materially adverse impact on our financial results. At this stage, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible financial loss or range of any potential financial loss, if any, as a result of this litigation.

On October 20, 2023, a securities class action captioned Pembroke Pines Firefighters & Police Officers Pension Fund et al v. Adobe, Inc. et al, renamed as In Re Adobe Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-09260, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Securities Action”) naming Adobe and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. The Securities Action purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s stock between July 23, 2021 and September 22, 2022 (the “Class Period”). The complaint, which was amended on February 23, 2024, alleges that certain public statements made by Adobe during the Class Period related to competition from Figma and the adequacy of Adobe’s existing offerings to counter harms Adobe may have faced due to Figma’s growing market position were materially false and misleading. The Securities Action seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief. We filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Action, which was granted in full on March 27, 2025. Plaintiff has sought leave to amend the complaint in response to the court’s order.

On November 16, 2023, a shareholder derivative action captioned Shah v. Narayen et al, Case No. 1:23-cv-01315, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Shah Action”), purportedly on behalf of Adobe. On January 3, 2024, a second shareholder derivative action captioned Gervat v. Narayen et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-00006, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Gervat Action”), purportedly on behalf of Adobe. On January 24, 2024, the Court consolidated the Shah and Gervat Actions (together, the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). On January 18, 2024, a shareholder derivative action captioned Sbriglio v. Narayen et al., Case No. 24-cv-429458, was filed in California Superior Court (the “Sbriglio Action”), purportedly on behalf of Adobe. On January 29, 2024, a shareholder derivative action captioned Roy v. Narayen et al., No. 1:24-cv-00633, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, (the “Roy Action”), purportedly on behalf of Adobe. On May 28, 2025, a shareholder derivative action captioned Daniel v. Narayen et al., Case No. 25-cv-46762 was filed in California Superior Court (the “Daniel Action,” and together with the Consolidated Derivative Action, the Roy Action, and the Sbriglio Action, the “Derivative Actions”), purportedly on behalf of Adobe. The Derivative Actions are based largely on the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Securities Action, and name certain of

our current and former officers and members of our Board of Directors as defendants and Adobe as a nominal defendant. The Derivative Actions together allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder), Section 20(a), and/or Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and seek recovery of unspecified damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs, as well as disgorgement of profits and certain payments and benefits, in the case of the Gervat and Daniel Actions, and improvements to Adobe’s corporate governance and internal procedures, in the case of the Shah and Daniel Actions, on behalf of Adobe. The Consolidated Derivative Action, the Roy Action, and the Sbriglio Action are presently stayed pending the final resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action.

We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing in the Securities Action and the Derivative Actions and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters. In view of the complexity and ongoing and uncertain nature of the outstanding proceedings and inquiries, at this time we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible financial loss or range of financial loss, if any, that we may incur to resolve or settle the Securities Action and the Derivative Actions.

In connection with disputes relating to the validity or alleged infringement of third-party intellectual property rights, including patent rights, we have been, are currently and may in the future be subject to claims, negotiations or complex, protracted litigation. Intellectual property disputes and litigation may be very costly and can be disruptive to our business operations by diverting the attention and energies of management and key technical personnel. Although we have successfully defended or resolved past litigation and disputes, we may not prevail in any ongoing or future litigation and disputes. Third-party intellectual property disputes could subject us to significant liabilities, require us to enter into royalty and licensing arrangements on unfavorable terms, prevent us from licensing certain of our products or offering certain of our services, subject us to injunctions restricting our sale of products or services, cause severe disruptions to our operations or the markets in which we compete, or require us to satisfy indemnification commitments with our customers including contractual provisions under various license arrangements and service agreements.