Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
May 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Energy Contracts As of May 31, 2025, the Company had a minimum commitment of approximately $47.2 million related to the energy services agreement for its Jamestown, North Dakota co-hosting facility payable over, approximately, the next 1.7 years. Construction Contracts The Company routinely engages with construction vendors for the construction of our facilities. These engagements are governed by contracts containing standard terms and conditions, including certain milestones that obligate the Company to pay as work is completed. In the event of termination of any of these contracts by the Company, the Company would be liable for all work that has been completed or in process, plus any applicable fees. The Company generally has the right to cancel these open purchase orders prior to delivery or terminate the contracts without cause. Claims and Litigation From time to time, the Company may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of operations in the normal course of business. Securities Lawsuit The Company, Wes Cummins, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and David Rench, the Company's then Chief Financial Officer, have been named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit in the matter styled, McConnell v. Applied Digital Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-1805, filed in August 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the “Securities Lawsuit”). Specifically, the complaint asserts claims pursuant to Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements regarding the company’s business, operations, and compliance policies, including claims that the Company overstated the profitability of its Data Center Hosting Business and its ability to successfully transition into a low-cost cloud services provider and that the Company’s board of directors was not “independent” within the meaning of Nasdaq listing rules. On May 22, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel, and on July 22, 2024, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint which asserts the same claims based on similar allegations in the original complaint. On September 20, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 20, 2024, lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On January 3, 2025, the defendants filed their reply in further support of the Motion to Dismiss. The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision in the Securities Lawsuit. If an unfavorable action were to occur, it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company’s results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable. Derivative Lawsuit On November 15, 2023, a derivative action was filed in the matter styled, Weich v. Cummins, et al., Case No. A-23-881629-C in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada (the “Derivative Lawsuit”). The Weich complaint named as defendants certain members of the Company’s Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer Wesley Cummins and purports to name the Company’s then Chief Financial Officer David Rench as a defendant. The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duties, corporate waste and unjust enrichment based upon allegations that the defendants caused or allowed the Company to make materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Company overstated the profitability of the Data Center Hosting Business and its ability to successfully transition into a low-cost cloud services provider and that the Board was not “independent” within the meaning of Nasdaq listing rules. On February 27, 2024, the derivative plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims as the original complaint. On June 5, 2024, following briefing and argument on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Derivative Lawsuit, the Court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion without prejudice and dismissing all claims against all defendants, including the Company, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to plead (1) demand futility as to each of plaintiff’s claims or (2) a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The order dismissed all claims against all defendants, including the Company. The plaintiff can seek leave to file an amended complaint but to date has not done so. The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision in this action. If an unfavorable action were to occur, it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company’s results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable. As of May 31, 2025, there were no other pending or threatened lawsuits that could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on the results of the Company’s consolidated operations. There are also no legal proceedings in which any of the Company’s management or affiliates is an adverse party or has a material interest adverse to the Company’s interest.

The Company routinely engages with construction vendors for the construction of our facilities. These engagements are governed by contracts containing standard terms and conditions, including certain milestones that obligate the Company to pay as work is completed. In the event of termination of any of these contracts by the Company, the Company would be liable for all work that has been completed or in process, plus any applicable fees. The Company generally has the right to cancel these open purchase orders prior to delivery or terminate the contracts without cause.

The Company, Wes Cummins, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and David Rench, the Company's then Chief Financial Officer, have been named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit in the matter styled, McConnell v. Applied Digital Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-1805, filed in August 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the “Securities Lawsuit”). Specifically, the complaint asserts claims pursuant to Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements regarding the company’s business, operations, and compliance policies, including claims that the Company overstated the profitability of its Data Center Hosting Business and its ability to successfully transition into a low-cost cloud services provider and that the Company’s board of directors was not “independent” within the meaning of Nasdaq listing rules. On May 22, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel, and on July 22, 2024, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint which asserts the same claims based on similar allegations in the original complaint. On September 20, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 20, 2024, lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On January 3, 2025, the defendants filed their reply in further support of the Motion to Dismiss.

The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision in the Securities Lawsuit. If an unfavorable action were to occur, it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company’s results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable.

On November 15, 2023, a derivative action was filed in the matter styled, Weich v. Cummins, et al., Case No. A-23-881629-C in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada (the “Derivative Lawsuit”). The Weich complaint named as defendants certain members of the Company’s Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer Wesley Cummins and purports to name the Company’s then Chief Financial Officer David Rench as a defendant. The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duties, corporate waste and unjust enrichment based upon allegations that the defendants caused or allowed the Company to make materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Company overstated the profitability of the Data Center Hosting Business and its ability to successfully transition into a low-cost cloud services provider and that the Board was not “independent” within the meaning of Nasdaq listing rules. On February 27, 2024, the derivative plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims as the original complaint.

On June 5, 2024, following briefing and argument on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Derivative Lawsuit, the Court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion without prejudice and dismissing all claims against all defendants, including the Company, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to plead (1) demand futility as to each of plaintiff’s claims or (2) a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The order dismissed all claims against all defendants, including the Company. The plaintiff can seek leave to file an amended complaint but to date has not done so.

The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision in this action. If an unfavorable action were to occur, it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company’s results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable.